Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bournemouth Order) Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire Electricity Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 82, 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill upon Thursday.—[The. Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Campbeltown Harbour and Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Rend the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

WIRELESS OPERATORS (WAGES DISPUTE).

l. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can report any pro-
gress in the settlement of the dispute at Hull and other ports between the wireless telegraphy operators and the shipping companies?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. My Department is in touch with the parties to the dispute, but I regret that it has not yet been possible to make any advance towards a settlement.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: When did the right hon. Gentleman take over the negotiations for the settlement of this dispute?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: So far as the dispute is concerned. it has never been taken over, and has always been subject to my Department, being a question of a dispute.

COAL-CARRYING VESSELS.

Dr. WATTS: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report, dated 10th April, 1024, of the informal committee on coal-carrying vessels, set up by the Board of Trade, and also of those contained in the second Report of this committee, which was issued on 15th May of the present year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The recommendations contained in the First Report of the informal committee on coal-carrying vessels were given effect to in instructions issued in January, 1925 (Circular 1651). The- Second Report was referred to the Classification Societies, as they were interested in the matter, and, on receipt of their replies, instructions were drafted and placed before the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. The Report of this Committee has now been received and is being considered by the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SCOTTISH SHALE INDUSTKY.

Mr. HARDIE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the White Paper [Cmd. 2538] dealing with the Scottish shale industry does
not give the capital of the industry prior to its absorption by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited; and will he procure the figures to make the Report complete?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The paid up capital of the Scottish shale oil companies before the formation of Scottish Oils, Limited, on 3rd September, 1919, was that given on page 14 of the White Paper, no change having taken .place between that date and the 30th September, 1925, except in the case of the Scottish Oil Agency, Limited, of which the paid up capital was increased from £100,000 to £125,000 during the year 1920.

Mr. HARDIE: What is the intention of a White Paper if it does not go back far enough to give a comparison of the earnings of these companies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It does go back. As I have already pointed out the hon. Member did not ask me about earnings, but about capital. It gives the capital both before and after amalgamation.

Mr. HARDIE: It does not give the capital of single companies showing the earnings on the actual capital.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the hon. Member will look at the last page of the White Paper, he will see the capital of each of these companies.

Mr. HARDIE: But that is not the actual capital used in the production.

BRITISH DYESTUFFS CORPERATION.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Dyestuffs Development Committee, constituted under Section 6, Article 2, of the Dyestuffs Import Regulation Act, was consulted before the decision was taken in respect of the surrender by the Government of its right to veto and control the actions of the British Dye-stuffs Corporation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, but His Majesty's Government were satisfied, before coming to a decision on the matter in question, that they were fully apprised of the views of the various interests represented on the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair or wise to come to this decision without consulting this Committee?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. The Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, investigated the whole matter extremely closely, and satisfied themselves that they took into consideration all the relevant facts.

Mr. HURST: Is not the Dyestuffs Corporation absolutely free to give up dye manufacturing and simply do the work of distributing German dyestuffs?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have an answer on this point in regard to another question, but if the hon. and learned Member refers to the statement of the chairman, made at the general meeting, he will see that nothing is further from their intention.

Mr. BETHEL: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Government has surrendered to the British Dyestuffs Corporation capital of the nominal value of £1,100,000; and whether he is aware that this sum relieves the corporation of all depreciation and thereby prejudices the interests of the other competing dye-making companies and firms in the country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: ; I regret that I am unable to accept the premise advanced by my hon. Friend, or the conclusion which he draws from it.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Does my right hon. Friend think it is fair that the whole of the depreciation of the British Dyestuffs Corporation should be wiped out, and that these firms, by this action, should practically be closed down?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is eminently desirable that any company should write down its capital to a figure which corresponds to the actual position of the business.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: ; The outside firms have no chance of doing that, and it, is only owing to this gift of £1,100,000 by the Government to the Dyestuffs Corporation that this is possible.

Mr. HARDIE: Was not the money called Government money to be used for
research purposes and are not the companies now taking over that research work free whereas other companies have to pay for their own research work?

Mr. BETHEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think every company engages in. research work.

Mr. HARDIE: But these companies are getting Government money and the others are not.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation on this matter?

Mr. BETHEL: That is my question.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: At the proper time the action of the Government can be challenged, and they will reply.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will it be possible to challenge this action after the transaction has been completed or before?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: I answered that question a fortnight ago in the House when I stated that there would be an end to all administrative responsibility if the Government was not entitled to carry on this administrative business.

Mr. BETHEL: I will raise the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House.

Mr. HURST: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the intended amalgamation of interests between the British Dyestuffs Corporation and the German Interessen Gemeinschaft, it is his intention to introduce a Bill to repeal the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of any such scheme of amalgamation as my hon. Friend suggests. In this connection, I would ask my hon. Friend to refer to the assurance given in Lord Ashfield's speech at the general meeting of the shareholders of the British Dyestuffs Corporation, both as regards the future manufacture of dyes and the interests of the colour users. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Ashfield stated in Manchester that this pact between the Interessen Gemeinschaft in Germany might come in, and, if that is the case, does he not see that the British Dyestuffs Corporation will simply become agents for this German firm? Will he make inquiries to see whether the research chemists of the British Dyestuffs Corporation are being discharged?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My answer deals with both those points, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see from what Lord Ashfield said at the general meeting that he is wrong in both those respects.

Mr. WEBB: Has the transaction to which reference has been made between the Government and this corporation actually been completed, or is it still under discussion?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. The Government have made a firm offer and it was put before the shareholders and it has been accepted by them at the extraordinary general meeting subject to confirmation at the adjourned general meeting.

Mr. WEBB: Do I understand that it is not within the power of this House to express any useful opinion on the action of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTER: As I said when this matter was first raised the Government have taken, by administrative action, what they consider to be the right and proper steps, and it will be open on the proper occasion for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the administrative action of the Government.

Colonel DAY: When will it be open to us?

Mr. MACKINDER: What is the relation of the market value of the shares to the amount of money which the Government have received for those shares?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

Mr. HURST: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cum of money paid or payable down to date by the Government to the British Dye-stuffs Corporation by way of commission on the sales of reparation dyes?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The amount paid or payable to the British Dyestuffs Corporation, Limited, for commission on sales of reparation dyestuffs to the end of October, 1925, is £81,800.

Mr. HURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into this disastrous adventure in State interference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. The Government consider it most desirable that they should cease to be a shareholder in this company and should be in the same position, vis-a-vis all dye making companies, and for that reason it was our view that it is undesirable that the Government should be directly associated with any one of them.

Mr. BASIL PETO: Does he not think that the whole history of this unfortunate affair should be a warning to the Government not to engage in State trading?

Colonel DAY: When will the House have an opportunity of discussing this matter?

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: What is the total loss in this respect to the British taxpayer?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot answer that question without notice. I think it is a question which should be addressed either to the Prime Minister or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

Colonel DAY: Y: May we have an answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: At end of questions.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended that next year's British Industries Fair, which hitherto has been purely an exhibition of goods, is to be converted into a trading concern by permitting exhibiting manufacturers to Hell their goods to private buyers?

Sir FRANK MEYER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why it is proposed, at the British Industries Fair of 1926 to permit exhibiting manufacturers to sell their goods direct to private
buyers; and what is the reason for this innovation?

Mr. CADOGAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, at the forthcoming British Industries Fair, exhibiting manufacturers will be permitted to sell their goods direct to the private buyer; and whether he is aware of the strong feeling among retailers against the proposal?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am in consultation with the interests concerned, and am at present unable to add anything to the answer which I gave yesterday to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). I am sending a, copy of that answer to the lion. Members.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the British Industries Fair is to be a temporary or a permanent institution?

Mr. SAMUEL: It depends on the success it meets with on the present occasion. We hope to make it a great success, and then we shall reconsider the whole matter.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it intended to subsidise it continually to the unnecessary extent of £25,000 a year?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that it is unnecessary expenditure. It is necessary to carry on the Fair, and if, by giving £20,000 or £25,000, we can make a success of it, I think it will be thoroughly justified.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Has it been considered whether some of these exhibitions might be held at a place which belongs to the public, namely, the Crystal Palace, and could any assistance be given with regard to that?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

FOREIGN INVESTMENTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in computing the national trade balance for the year, regard is had to the volmue of invisible imports represented by the
interest on capital invested in this country by Americans and other foreigners; at what figure he estimates this figure for the present year; and what were the comparative figures for 1924 and 1913?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In the article regarding the Balance of Trade in 1924, printed in the " Board of Trade Journal " for 29th January, 1925, under the heading " Net Income from Overseas Investments," the answer to my hon. Friend's question is given, namely:
Under this heading is included the income from investments in Empire and foreign countries remitted to the United Kingdom, less the income remitted overseas on account of the investments of other countries in the United Kingdom.
I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this article, which contains a full explanation of the estimates on this subject made in my Department.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. CLARRY: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when, in view of the urgency of maintaining a key industry and providing work for unemployed, a definite decision may be expected upon the safeguarding of the steel industry?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Goodman Roberts), of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year 2,500,000 tons of steel and iron were imported into this country which could have been made here, and that had that been done 100,000 men would have been employed who are now unemployed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

Mr. CLARRY: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the full capacity in tons per annum of British steelworks, together with the quantity now being produced, and the approximate number of men who would find employment
directly and indirectly by a revival in the steel production industry to the extent of a million tons per annum?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is estimated that the productive capacity of steel plants in Great Britain is about 12,000,000 tons per annum. The quantity of steel produced in October was 647,000 tons. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) on 1st December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 100,000 men would have been employed had it been possible to make this iron and steel in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

Mr. CLARRY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that foreign steel manufacturers are selling steel imported into this country at a lower price than they are charging consumers in their own country in order to capture our markets; and if he will state what is the approximate difference in price?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no direct evidence of the practice suggested in the question. It has, however, been reported that various associations of manufacturers in Germany allow rebates on home prices of iron and steel in respect of material used in the manufacture of goods for export. The amounts of the rebates vary, but a figure of 6 marks per ton has been mentioned in the case of pig iron.

Mr. CLARRY: May I ask what that amounts to per ton? I did not quite catch the figure.

Sir P CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is 6 marks per ton in the case of pig iron.

Mr. CLARRY: That is a preferential rate for home consumption?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a rebate on home prices.

Mr. CLARRY: That practically amounts to a preferential rate for home consumption.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if any of this steel was made from iron ore produced in the British Empire by long hours and short wages?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Colonel DAY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any difficulty has been experienced in recruiting suitable men in the Army following the recent pay cuts affecting junior officers and men now joining the Colours?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): No, Sir. The numbers enlisted since the lower rates have been in force are slightly in excess of the numbers for the corresponding period last year, although November shows a falling off as compared with October.

PHARMACISTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that prescriptions containing dangerous drugs and poisons may be dispensed in the Royal Army Medical Corps by persons other than medical officers or pharmacists, he will give instructions that such prescriptions shall in future only be dispensed by a medical officer or pharmacist, or under the direct supervision of a medical officer or pharmacist by whom the quantity of the dangerous drugs or poisons shall be checked?

Captain KING: All Army dispensaries are under the direct supervision of a medical officer. The only persons, other than medical officers, who may make up prescriptions in these dispenssaries are qualified Army dispensers, and they may only make up prescriptions signed by a medical officer. I am not aware of any reason for considering that the present procedure is not satisfactory.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has a qualified Army dispenser qualifications equal to those of a chemist's assistant?

Captain KING: I believe that "qualified dispenser" is a well-recognised description.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Has any attention been called to the
unanimous Report of the Committee on the Payment and Status of Pharmacists in the Army?

Captain KING: Oh, yes.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not that Report state that pharmacists should be employed by the War Office?

Captain KING: In one of the recommendations of the Report certain duties were allotted to pharmacists.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it the case that such a man in the. Army would not be allowed to dispense under the National Health Insurance Act for the civil population, and does my hon. and gallant Friend think that the Army should be in a different position from the civil population?

Captain KING: I am not aware that a qualified dispenser is not allowed to make up prescriptions in ordinary civil life.

Brigadier - General CHARTERIS: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to Recommendation 3 of the committee appointed by the Army Council to consider the employment of pharmacists in the Army; and if a superintending pharmacist is now in subordinate charge of the dispensary in each and every military hospital of 100 teds and over?

Captain KING: I am aware of the recommendation referred to. The Army Council Instruction was cancelled in April, 1922. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Captain BOURNE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, as a result of representations made by the Army Council, pharmacists who volunteer for service in the British Red Cross units are no longer regarded as officers; and whether he can state the grounds on which these representations were made?

Captain KING: The War Office have advised the Central Voluntary Aid Detachment Council, who consulted them on the subject, that the status of pharmacists in their detachments should not fee higher than that of non-commissioned officers in the Army. The reason is that the status of members of voluntary aid detachments should be appropriate
to the duties they may be required to perform in war. There are no appointments of officer's rank for pharmacists in the Army.

Captain BOURNE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that units of the British Red Cross Society are regarded as being in the nature of a reserve to the Royal Army Medical Corps in time of war, he will give instructions that quartermasters, whose duty it will be to order and superintend the distribution of medical supplies, shall be qualified pharmacists?

Captain KING: No, Sir, I should not be justified in giving such instructions.

COAL ALLOWANCE.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the allowance of coal both for officers and other ranks of the Army is very inadequate during the winter months; and whether he will take steps to increase this allowance?

Captain KING: Fuel is issued to the troops as required within annual limits fixed by the scales laid down in regulations. These scales have been found generally adequate, and there is power under the regulations to increase them in exceptional cases. Certain minor adjustments, mainly of personal issues to officers and others, are under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some cases officers' messes have to spend over £100 during the winter on the purchase of fuel, and also that the men have to buy fuel in order to keep their barrack rooms reasonably warm?

Captain KING: I do not think that that affects my answer.

CORPS OF MILITARY ACCOUNTANTS.

Mr. J. BAKER: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the officers in the Corps of Military Accountants were led to believe that they would receive permanent commissions and that their appointments have been terminated by three months' notice, he will consider the desirability of awarding a gratuity based on the length of service
as compensation for the loss of position and to enable the officers to live while seeking employment in civil life?

Captain KING: I am unable to assent to the opening statement in this question. The case of these temporary officers of the Corps of Military Accountants does not differ from that of other officers who are demobilised from time to time as their services cease to be required, and I regret that no gratuity can be granted to them on the termination of their temporary employment.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what assistance is being given to these men with a. view to finding them work?

Captain KING: I should require notice of that question.

DOMINION SUPPLIES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Report of the Imperial Economic Committee, which shows that the self- governing Dominions purchase British goods per capita to the extent of £6 17s. 3d. as against Europe 12s. Id., South America 18s., and the United States of America 8s. 6d., he is prepared to arrange for the use of Dominion supplies in the Army in preference to foreign supplies?

Captain KING: It, is the practice of the War Office, in purchasing supplies for the Army, to give effective preference to Dominion products over those of foreign origin.

RHINE ARMY (MARRIAGES WITH GERMANS).

Mr. ERSKINE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many marriages have taken place between non-commissioned officers and men of the British Army on the Rhine with Germans during the last six years'?

Captain KING: The total number of such marriages from the commencement. of the occupation up to the end of June, 1925, recorded in the Army Register of Marriages, was 619.

Mr. MACKINDER: Arising out of that, may we have the number of children?

OCCUPATION OF WIESBAPEN.

Mr. ERSKINE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the married
quarters at Wiesbaden are of equal comfort and convenience to those at Cologne; whether he can say for how long the occupation of Wiesbaden is contemplated; and if any reduction of the Army of Occupation is likely to take place in the near future?

Captain KING: There has not been time enough yet to judge how the married quarters at Wiesbaden compare with those at Cologne as regards comfort and convenience. As regards the second part of the question, I cannot add anything to the reply given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question by the hon. Member on the 18th November. As regards the third part, a reduction of the British Army of Occupation by one infantry battalion and a battery of medium artillery is contemplated.

ACCOUNTING STAFF.

Colonel ENGLAND: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of his assurance that the proposal to discontinue the cost accounts of combatant units was to be subject to the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts, under what authority the preparation of these accounts has already been discontinued and notices of dismissal issued to the accounting staff engaged upon them; and whether, in view of the decision of the Public Accounts Committee not to give this approval until they have heard further evidence on both sides of the question, he will arrange to suspend these notices of dismissal pending the Report of the Committee?

Captain KING: My right hon. Friend is at this moment discussing the whole question with the Public Accounts Committee.

POISON GAS FACTORY, ST. HELEN'S.

Mr. SEXTON: 36.
asked the Secretary -of State for War, if he is aware that the-tenants of 16 houses owned by his Department situated at Abbot's Field Lane, Sutton, St. Helen's, Lancashire, have received notice to quit; and if, in view of the fact that these people at the end of the week's notice will be rendered homeless owing to the, great shortage of houses in the district, he will consider it advisable to provide adequate housing
accommodation or suspend the notice until such time as such accommodation is procurable?

Captain KING: I am aware that these notices have been given. Owing to their situation the cottages cannot continue to be occupied without risk. The tenants have had long warning of the Department's intention and I regret that in the circumstances I could not consent to the suspension of the notices.

Mr. SEXTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state the nature of the risk, and in view of the fact that these 16 houses are habitable, what is the reason these people are being removed? What is the danger?

Captain KING: I cannot agree that the houses are in a habitable condition. They are in a very dilapidated condition. The risk, as the hon. Member is probable very well aware, is that they actually adjoin the experimental factory of poison gas and we do not think it is right to subject the inhabitants of these cottages and their children to any possible risk.

Mr. SEXTO: N: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some of these people have lived there for 50 years, and that the innovation of the poison gas factory was a war emergency, and now that the emergency for poisoning people has gone, will he remove the poison gas factory and leave these people in the houses?

Captain KING: I cannot give that undertaking.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are these cottages being removed so that the poison gas factory can be extended?

Captain KING: No, that is not the intention. I have stated the true facts. We do not consider it is fair to let these people take any risk.

Mr. SEXTON: They have nowhere to go.

TATTOOS.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Wembley Tattoo had any result on recruiting for the Army; and whether he has been consulted regarding unofficial tattoos to be manned next year by ex-service men?

Captain KING: I think it is probable that tattoos have a beneficial effect on recruiting, and the Army Council hope that tattoos may be organised next year by the military authorities in commands on the lines of those at Aldershot and Tidworth. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying that the War Office could not give facilities for unofficial displays of this kind.

Mr. THURTLE: Do the Government consider the tattoo had had the effect of fostering the spirit of militarism?

TROOPS IN IRELAND (ACCOMMODATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the uncomfortable conditions in which the troops in South Ireland, especially at Spike Island and Berehaven, exist; if he is aware that sufficient married quarters are not provided; and if he will take steps to ameliorate these conditions?

Captain KING: Yes, Sir. The matter is receiving consideration.

DISCHARGES (ILL-HEALTH).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many men have been discharged from the Army in each of the last three years, including 1925, for ill-health; in how many of these cases the men have claimed that their disability was due to service; in how many 'cases these claims have been admitted and in how many rejected; and whether, in any case, the said applicants have had the right to appeal and, if so, to whom?

Captain KING: The number of men invalided from the Army in each of the last three years ending on 30th September have been 2,920, 2,673 and 2,606 respectively. No statistics are available showing in how many of these cases the men claimed that their disability was attributable to service, but the number of cases in which disability was accepted as due to service were 373, 419 and 347 respectively. Applicants have no right of appeal against the decision of the Chelsea Commissioners. The Chelsea Commissioners are an independent body who adjudicate upon the soldier's claim
and are not subject to the control of any Government Department in administering the pension regulations.

Mr. THURTLE: Would the War Office consider the desirability of setting up some machinery of appeal in these cases?

Captain KING: I think really the Chelsea Commissioners give such very careful and sympathetic consideration to all cases that such a court of appeal is not necessary.

Mr. HAYES: Are these cases referred to a medical referee in the case of the matter being pressed by the ex-service man?

Captain King: The Chelsea Commissioners have their own medical advisers whom they consult in all these cases.

Mr. HAYES: A medical referee, not a medical adviser.

Captain KING: There is no appeal from the decision of the Chelsea Commissioners.

Captain HOPE: How many of these men were discharged as medically unfit in the first three months of their service?

Captain KING: I could not give the figures. I should require notice.

NATIONAL MEMORIAL (MERCANTILE MARINE).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress had been made by the Imperial War Graves Commission in respect of the national memorial to commemorate those members of the mercantile marine who fell during the War owing to enemy action?

Captain KING: A great number of different interests have had to be consulted with regard to the best form of memorial to the in men of the mercantile marine who lost their lives in the War, but I am glad to be able to say that agreement has now been obtained and I hope that arrangements will shortly be completed which will enable my right hon. Friend to make an announcement on the subject.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Where is the Thames Embankment memorial to be?

Captain KING: I can give no further information.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Where is this monument going to be erected?

Captain KING: That is the question to which I have replied.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (CIVIL STAFF).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the reduction in the civil staff in the War Office is keeping pace with the reduction in the military staff; and what is the percentage reduction in each case since 1918?

Captain KING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The civil staff has been reduced by 88 per cent, since November, 1918, and the military staff by 89 per cent.

Mr. SNELL: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain the delay in the fixing of the civilian clerical complements for the Royal Military College, Woolwich, and the application to that office of the terms of the Report of the reorganisation sub-committee of the National Whitley Council, which were published over five years ago?

Captain KING: The complements for this office are in an advance stage of preparation. I do not think there has been any undue delay, having regard to the difficulty of carrying out a large scheme of reorganisation, which involves the fixing of permanent establishments on a new basis for all War Department out-station offices.

Mr. SNELL: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the scheme of clerical reorganisation approved by the Treasury in May, 1925, has not yet been applied to the department of the chief inspector of armaments at Woolwich; that an official examination of the work in this establishment was carried out as far back as 1st July, 1925: and will he state the reason for the delay, which is causing dissatisfaction among the members of the staff?

Captain KING: Complements have now been fixed, and will be put into force at an early date.

Mr. SNELL: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is cognisant of the fact that certain members of the civilian clerical staff of the Artillery College, Woolwich, with many years of approved and satisfactory service in the department to their credit, are still in receipt of a maximum basic rate of pay of 32s. per week; and whether he will say what action he proposes to take to bring these men within the ægis of the Report of the reorganisation sub-committee of the National Whitley Council?

Captain KING: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer on 7th instant to a question by the hon. Member for Portsmouth North regarding the scheme of reorganisation which is being applied to all War Department out-station offices'.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the widespread discontent prevalent in the out-station offices consequent upon the delay in applying the clerical reorganisation scheme in these offices; and whether he can now state the exact date on which the new scheme will be introduced?

Captain KING: The reorganisation involves the fixing of establishments for every out-station office and the re-grading of every individual clerk therein. Complements have been fixed and re-grading carried out in several offices, and every effort is being made to expedite progress in the case of the offices which still remain to be dealt with; but in view of the many considerations involved in fixing complements on a permanent basis, I regret that I cannot yet fix a definite date for the completion of the work.

CINEMATOGRAPHY (TECHNICAL ADVISER).

Lt.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38
asked (1) the Secretary of State for War what are the duties of the technical adviser on cinematography to the War Office; and how long has this post been in existence;
(2) the Financial Secretary for the Treasury whether he has knowledge of an
official known as the technical adviser on cinematography to His Majesty's Government; what salary does he receive; on what Vote does this salary appear; and what staff is allotted to this official?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): There is a technical adviser whose duty it is to assist Government Departments generally in questions relating to cinematography and to supervise the preservation and use of films in the possession of the Government. He was first engaged in October, 1915, by the Customs and Excise Department as a part-time expert adviser in connection with the import duty on films. Since that date he has served under various Departments, and his present appointment under the Stationery Office dates from 1st April, 1924. His salary, on a scale of £600-£800, plus cost of living bonus, is included in the Vote for Stationery and Printing. His staff consists of one operator and two women assistants.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the duties of this official been added to recently, and was he responsible for making the arrangements for filming the Locarno Pact ceremony?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer that without, notice. I have no knowledge.

Colonel DAY: What previous experience has this technical adviser had of the film industry?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member must put down a question.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that previous to his present position he was in the employ of the London County Council Fire Department?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this official, besides being a technical expert, acting as a kind of liaison officer between the Government and the cinema industry?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware.

NECESSITOUS AREAS COMMITTEE.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if the committee set up
to examine the privations existing in such necessitous areas as West Hartlepool has yet reported; if such Report can be made available to the Members of the House; and what are the Government's proposals to relieve the distress obtaining in the Hartlepools?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Committee recently appointed to examine and report on any scheme which may be submitted to them for Exchequer assistance to local authorities in necessitous urban areas have not yet issued a report. As regards the list part of the question, if my hon. Friend is referring to individual cases of distress, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that adequate provision for relief is available through existing channels.

Sir W. SUGDEN: When will the Committee be able to report?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will the hon. Member refer this inquiry to the Prime Minister and ask the Prime Minister to give it immediate attention, in view of the great dissatisfaction and distress in the necessitous areas, owing to the poverty which exists there?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there is any justification for that statement. The Committee has been appointed, and it is getting on with its work.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member inform me whether this Committee is only considering necessitous areas in England, or does its functions extend to Scotland? Is any action being taken in regard to necessitous areas in Scotland?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better put his quest on to the Scottish Office.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member not inform me what is the area covered by this Committee? Does it apply only to England or to the whole of Great Britain?

Sir K. WOOD: I must ask the hon. Member to put down a question.

Captain MACMILAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the investigation of this Committee regarding necessitous areas is related to the investigation
of the Committee of Inquiry into unemployment insurance; and, if not, will steps be taken to co-relate the two?

Sir K. WOOD: It is a special inquiry. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend the terms of reference.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (QUESTIONS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 46.
asked the Prime Minister who is the Member in this House to whom questions for the Lord President of the Council should be addressed?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. In cases where hon. Members are in any doubt, I would suggest that they should address their questions to me and I will arrange for an answer to be given.

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a. member of the medical profession who is struck off the list by the General Medical Council has no redress or appeal against such decision; and whether he is prepared to set up a committee to investigate the procedure of the council in its relation to modern methods and usage of the medical profession regarding the Medical Act of 1858?

Major HENNESSY (Lord of the Treasury): I am asked by the Lord President of the Council to say that there is no appeal from the General Medical Council to another Court, but a medical practitioner struck off the register may at any future session bring up his case for revision, and his name may be, and often is, restored to the register. In all inquiries the Medical Council is assisted by a lawyer of great experience and ability. Since its creation in 1858, it has performed the duties entrusted to it without serious criticism, and as at present advised my Noble Friend does not think that sufficient reason has been shown for setting up a committee of inquiry.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that members of the Bar, solicitors, and members of all professions except the medical profession have an independent court of appeal, and will he take steps in this case to try to get one?

Colonel SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that practitioners struck off the Roll have a right of appeal to the Privy Council, if they care to exercise it?

Major HENNESSY: I will see that the observations of my hon. Friends are conveyed to my Noble Friend.

FOREIGN VISITORS' HOTEL BILLS (PERCENTAGE IMPOST).

Mr. PILCHER: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the sum which, as a result of his inquiries, it is estimated would result in a normal fiscal year from a percentage impost levied on the hotel bills of foreign visitors to this country pro rata to the degree of luxury or economy observed by them?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. PILCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government have been so behindhand in making these inquiries in a year of a probable Budget deficit?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Whoever said or admitted that we have been behindhand?

CUSTOMS DUTIES (WAREHOUSE RENTS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether goods held up pending the decision of the Customs officers as to whether they are dutiable or not are chargeable for warehouse rent?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Warehouses and sheds for the accommodation of imported goods are provided by dock companies, wharfingers, etc., and not by the Crown. Any question of a charge for warehouse rent is therefore a matter for settlement between the warehouse proprietor and the importer concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

BRITISH LOSSES IN RUSSIA.

Mr. TAYLOR: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if British companies and individual traders who lost property or money as a result of the nationalisation of property in Russia were allowed to write oft in full the amount of such losses before arriving at the amount of Excess Profits Duty or Income Tax due to the Exchequer; and, if so, whether he can state the amount so written off as bad debts since 1917?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The losses to which I gather the hon. Member refers would be largely capital losses not allowable for purposes of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax. For the rest, the question of allowance depends so much upon the facts of individual cases and involves such a variety of considerations that it is not possible to deal with the point within the limits of an answer to a question. No statistics are available which would enable me to reply to the second part of the question.

Mr. TAYLOR: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the trading losses of British firms in Russia would be available for allowances for writing off; that in regard to factories owned by British firms in Russia the capital value is allowed to be written off in calculating the Excess Profits Duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to be very careful in answering questions which may have a legal consequence. The effect of my answer was that the losses referred to would be largely capital losses and not-allowable for the purpose of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I press for a reply as to whether in regard to the losses of industrial undertakings in Russia belonging to British firms, the value of these losses was allowed to be written off before the Excess Profits Duty was arrived at?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given an answer which would indicate that, as a general rule, such losses would not be allowable for the purpose of Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax.

BASES OF ASSESSMENT.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is
aware that there are 13 different bases of assessment in force for Income Tax purposes, which makes the compilation of Super-tax returns extremely complicated, generally requiring the services of professional assistance; that this could be obviated if incomes under Schedule A, No. 3, B, D, and E, falling to be directly assessed were assessed to Income Tax on the basis of the profits of the year preceding the year of assessment, then many of the various bases of Income Tax assessment could be abolished and the assessment of the preceding year be adopted for Super-tax purposes; and will he, in these circumstances, arrange for' taxpayers to make only one return for Income Tax and Super-tax, so that in the majority of cases the Super-tax assessment could be made locally by the inspector of taxes and sent to the special commissioners for approval and allowance as in the case of Income Tax payers who elect to be assessed by them instead of the local commissioners?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the variety of bases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refer? although I do not follow his calculation of their number. A remedy for the inherent difficulties of the subject is not easily found but the matter is one which has my constant study.

An HON. MEMBER: Has the right hon. Gentleman personally been able to understand Income Tax returns without assistance?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have for many years employed the services of an expert.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could make considerable economies if he would amalgamate Income Tax and Super-tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. These are extremely difficult matters and require very careful consideration. I have been devoting a great deal of time and thought to the subject, but whether anything will come of it or not is a question which I cannot answer.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the possibility
of making the north door of the British Museum available for public use so as to facilitate access to the Print Room and serve the general convenience of visitors and students approaching from the north?

Mr. McNEILL: I understand that the extra cost of the staff that would be required to give these improved facilities would be between. £800 and £900 per annum, and I regret that in present financial circumstances I do not feel justified in incurring it.

Sir M. CONWAY: Does my right hon. Friend realise that so long as the north door is closed the expensive lift near it is practically useless, also that the Print Room and other galleries at the north end of the Museum are very far away from the main entrance and can only be reached from it by a complicated route, and that in consequence the special exhibitions from time to time held and changed in the north galleries are little visited by strangers ignorant of the intricate geography of the Museum?

Mr. McNEILL: I thoroughly appreciate all that, but I also appreciate the cost of the removal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FERRY SERVICE, LOCHALSH AND KYLEAKIN.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: 61.
asked the Secretary for Scotland who are the contractors for ferrying between Lochalsh and Kyleakin and the contract price for the said ferry services; whether he is satisfied that the ferry charges are reasonable; and would he be prepared to consider the offer of ex-service men to provide a better and cheaper service than now exists?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The arrangements with regard to this ferry are not under my control, but I have communicated with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company, who own the ferry rights, and am informed that the contractor for ferrying is Mr. John Clark of Kyleakin, Skye, and that he pays an annual rent of £100 to the company under a lease which expires in about two years. In the circumstances, it would not appear to be practicable for
the company to make arrangements on the lines indicated in the last part of the hon. Member's question.

Mr. HENDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction among the farming community with regard to the fees charged for the use of the ferry, and does he think it wise? Will he make inquiries?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will make further inquiries.

SMALL-POX.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 62.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Registrar-General for Scotland classified the deaths from small-pox in Scotland in the years 1870 to 1875 into vaccinated, unvaccinated, and doubtful; and, if so, will he state how many deaths were registered in each of those classes in each of those years, stating also the age classification of each class?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Such classification was not introduced in the Registrar-General's Reports until a later period. The second part of the question therefore does not arise.

AGRICULTURE (LAND DRAINAGE).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 63.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to announce the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Scottish Agricultural Conference, and to indicate when a day will be given for discussion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that I cannot at present add substantially to the reply which I gave to the question put by the hon. and gallant Baronet a fortnight ago. I am not in a position to say whether a day can be given for discussion.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Seeing that the farmers of Scotland were asked by the Government to attach great importance to the proceedings of this Conference, seeing that this Conference reported over four months ago, and recommended, in the first instance, that drainage was the first necessity of Scottish land, and seeing that the only action of the Government since has been to cut down the grants
hitherto given, will the right hon. Gentleman not undertake to come to a decision before Christmas?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the agricultural community in Scotland at the alleged apathy of the Government, and will my right hon. Friend not give an undertaking to make some pronouncement as to the Government's agricultural policy before the end of the present Session?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot make a promise of that kind. The matter is receiving constant and careful attention, and there is no foundation for the allegation in question.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the urgency of this question, will not the Secretary for Scotland approach the Prime Minister and curtail some of the holiday's of Parliament so as to get on with this business?

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: 66.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what funds are at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland this winter for land drainage grants; and if the Board are having to refuse applications for fresh grants this winter?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The sum at the disposal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for grants under the land drainage unemployment scheme which is in operation this winter is approximately £16,500. Applications for grants are being confined to persons who unsuccessfully applied in the last two years and no fresh applications are being entertained.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the Government's own Conference, having reported that drainage was the primary need of Scottish agriculture, the only action taken by the Government has been to cut down these grants to one-third?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No; this provision is a continuance of a temporary provision, and the new policy of the Government will be presently announced.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the payment one-third of the provision in the last three years?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Are large numbers of grants being refused?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No; the amount available this year under the unemployment scheme is the sum which I have stated, and I have decided that in the first instance only those who had previously put in applications and have been disappointed should be considered.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: Are any extra grants being given for drainage in Scotland? Could not a special rate be levied so that Scotland might drain itself?

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE (RELIEF).

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: 64.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the action of the Scottish Board of Health in refusing sanction to parish councils in the shale oil areas to give relief to men affected by the present trade dispute; and if he will accede to the request of the local authorities that they should be permitted to give relief at least until the umpire's decision has been given?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am advised that under the circumstances of the present-trade dispute it cannot be considered that the men directly concerned in the dispute who applied for relief to the parish council were unable to obtain employment in the sense of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Act, 1921. Accordingly when application was made to the Board by certain parish councils for sanction to overdraw their bank accounts to provide for the expense of relief to be given by them under the above Act, the Board considered it to be their duty to call the attention of parish councils to the illegality of granting such relief, and I regret that under the circumstances I am unable to accede to the request that has been made by the pariah councils.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that it has not yet been determined whether this dispute is a strike or a lockout, and why should the Board of Health have taken sides in the matter before the point is determined?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly that is the description which the hon. Member gives to the matter, but I am advised that the Board is pursuing the proper course.

Mr. WESTWOOD: In the circular issued by the Board of Health, did the Board draw the attention of the parish councils to the fact that they can give relief for the children and the womenfolk?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am certain that the parish councils are well aware—conferences took place—of the circumstances under which they can give relief.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. In the circular issued did the Board draw the attention of the parish councils to the power they had to help the women and the children?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The best way would be for me to send a copy of the letter to the hon. Gentleman.

HOUSING (DUNDEE).

Dr. SHIELS: 65.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that the Dundee Town Council Housing Committee has unanimously refused to avail themselves of the £40 additional subsidy on the ground that the houses eligible were not sufficiently attractive, and that the limit of 10 per cent. of skilled building labour was impracticable; and if ho will consider adding to the list of selected firms and modifying the specified conditions?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been informed of the decision referred to, but I do not consider that the refusal of Dundee to participate in the scheme is a reason for adding to the list of selected firms or modifying the specified conditions.

Dr. SHIELS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the convener of this Housing Committee stated that the houses of the Coralite Company who are on the list were the worst finished houses inside that he had ever seen., and does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Atholl houses, which also comply with trade union conditions, should be placed on the list?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Housing Committee are so thoroughly dissatisfied with the types of houses offered that they desire to ascertain whether it is possible to extend the scope of selection, as they are absolutely satisfied that no satisfactory
houses can be provided with only 10 per cent. of skilled labour? 1s the right hon. Gentleman prepared to grant some latitude in that respect?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I cannot alter the terms and the conditions until I have received final replies from the local authorities in Scotland.

UNEMPLOYED BUILDING TRADE WORKERS (GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 67.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the great need of housing in Glasgow and also the number of unemployed building-trade workers in that city; and if he will take any steps to secure the provision of houses and absorb the unemployed labour?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that there are a number of unemployed building trade workers in Glasgow. I understand that the difficulty at present mainly arises from a great shortage of labour in certain key trades, in particular plasterers. The last return in my possession shows, for example, that, in the Knightswood scheme, there are 412 houses at plaster work stage, and only two foremen, two journeymen and two apprentices at work, a shortage of 30 plasterers and two lathers being indicated here by the Corporation. Committees were set up last year by the building industry to deal with this question, and I am awaiting their suggestions. Meanwhile, I am pressing upon authorities the need for using all methods to secure the speedier supply of houses.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour, in answer to a question; last Wednesday, stated that the week previously there were 17 plasterers who were idle in Glasgow and drawing benefit, and that he could not place them in work, and that the Corporation of Glasgow could not find them jabs? Will the right hon. Gentleman state why there is the contradiction as to a shortage of plasterers while there are 17 men drawing benefit and no work can be found for them by the local authority?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot accept the hon. Member's statement. The Minister
of Labour said that no work could be found for the men. I am so dissatisfied with the position that I am having special inquiries made at this moment as to the number of plasterers who are unemployed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men last Thursday sent a special deputation to the Glasgow Corporation asking that work could be found for them at a place stated, that the 17 men were prepared to start work the next day, and that no work has been found for them up to the present?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact, but I am at the moment making inquiries into the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

PILLING MOSS, LANCASHIRE (BORING).

Sir W. de FRECE: 68.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any Government officials are commencing boring operations for coal in the area of Pilling Moss, Lancashire?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): No, Sir; I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.

SUBVENTION (PROSPEROUS COLLIERIES).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 69.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of collieries showing a profit in each area and the total amount of such profit for the months of August, September, and October, and the amount of subvention paid to the collieries in each group showing a profit; and if he will state the tonnage of coal raised at such collieries and the percentage which this bears to the total tonnage output of the country for the same period?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on let December to the right hon. Member for Ogmore.

Sir F. SANDERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a number of collieries in this country which are consistently making, a profit of 2s. per ton, in addition to which they are receiving
a subsidy to the same amount, and will he take such steps as are necessary to prevent the anomaly continuing?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. Member does not quite realise the position. The subsidy is paid according to the number of manshifts worked in each colliery. By the subsidy the wages are raised from the owners' scale to the higher scale asked by the men, irrespective of the profit or loss made by the colliery. If the subsidy were withheld from the more prosperous collieries you would be subsidising the inefficient to the disadvantage of the efficient collieries.

Mr. BATEY: 71.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid as subsidy to the coal industry for the months of August, September. October and November?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The amount of subvention, in respect of the four months to 30th November, paid up to that date was £7,585,948. The estimated total liability for that period is about £8,700,000.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the figure in the White Paper represents actual expenditure or is an estimate—because it happens to be exactly the same amount as that given for October?

Mr. DIXEY: When will the Report on the mining industry be published?

Colonel LANE-FOX: In answer to the first supplementary question, I may say that a large number of the figures in the White Paper, certainly those up to the end of October, are definite figures, but beyond that they are probably estimates.

SAFETY IN MINES RESEARCH BOARD.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 70.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a member of Nobels Explosives Company, Limited, is a member of the Safety in Mines Research Board; and whether, in view of the large business connections of this firm with the collieries, he will, in the interests of safety, have this position filled by a person who will be free and unbiassed when considering suggested safety appliances for shot-firing?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No member of the Safety in Mines Research Board is associated with Nobels Explosives Company, Limited, but the head of that company's research department is rendering valuable service as a member of the Explosives in Mines Research Committee. I have the fullest confidence in his impartiality, and disagree emphatically with the suggestion that it would be in the interests of safety to replace him.

MIXES CLOSED, COUNTY or DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines closed in the county of Durham on 31st July, 1925, also on 30th November, 1925, and the number of miners unemployed on each date?

Colonel LANE-FOX: On the 31st July, 1925, 07 mines in the county of Durham, normally employing 40,600 wage-earners, had closed and not re-opened since the 1st January, 1924. On 30th November, 1925, the corresponding figures were 91 and 34,300 respectively. The number of colliery workers in the county of Durham whose unemployment books were lodged at exchanges on 27th July, 1925, was 41,821, and on 26th October, 1925 (the latest date available), 48,189. These figures include persons on short time.

COAL PRICES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 73.
asked the Secretary for Mines' whether he is aware that grading of coal by the pit-head price is successfully practised in Germany, and whether he will examine this and other methods of grading with a view to protecting British household and other consumers from being sold inferior grades of coal as best?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not quite follow what the hon. and gallant Member means when he speaks of grading of coal by the pit-head price. I have certainly never heard of such a system being adopted in Germany: grading in that country is on the basis of quality and calorific value. As regards the last part of the question, I hope that the Royal Commission will shortly be reporting on this subject.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Royal Commission will not report Until
the winter is over, and that many people are suffering grave hardship by the existing price of coal in London?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the next question on the Paper.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has not this been a grievance requiring attention for the last five years—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself showed when he was sitting on this side of the House?

Captain GARRO-JONES: 74.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the rise in the price of all grades of household coal, and of the fact that the Royal Commission will not publish its Report till the winter is practically over, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to check this rise in price?

Colonel LANE-FOX: In present circumstances it is inevitable that, with the increased demand, the price of household coal in the winter months should increase, and there is nothing new about that. I am watching the situation carefully, and it is obvious that the investigations which the Royal Commission are making into the question of household coal prices will also strongly deter any exploitation of the public at present.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in London the price of coal has gone up to the poor people in many cases by twopence per cwt., and that an increase of 3s. 4d. a ton is not at all justified, but calls for immediate legislation to suppress these plunderers?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I shall be very glad to have any information which the hon. Member can give me.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going to take steps to protect the poor against plundering?

Colonel LANE-FOX: If I am perfectly certain there is a grievance.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it not the fact that this question has been repeatedly investigated and it has been authoritatively recommended that action should be taken, and that this continued inaction and non possumus attitude is bringing the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government into disgrace?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PAPER).

Mr. HALL CAINE: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the proposal for a. duty on wrapping paper in the next Session of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; certainly.

IRELAND (CONFIRMATION AGREEMENT) BILL.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Treasury has now completed the formulation—officially stated to be in preparation in March last—of the British claim against the Irish Free State Government under Article 5 of the Treaty: and if so, what is the amount so formulated; and if not, whether he will state approximately what in the view of His Majesty's Government is the amount of the liability of the. Free State to the British Government under Article 5?

The PRIME MINISTER: A preliminary claim was formulated as a basis of discussion. As regards the remainder of the question, I propose to deal with the matter in Debate this afternoon. I think it would mislead the House if I attempted to give figures without the necessary explanations.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to undertake that the figures to which he alludes will be given before the House is invited to discuss the agreement, that is to say in the first speech from the Government Benches.

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, and it will then be clear to my hon. Friend the very limited amount of information which the Government can give, and he will realise the impossibility of dealing with this matter by question and answer. I will give all the information I have.

Mr. THOMAS: Simultaneously with giving that information and in order that the House may judge accurately, will the right hon. Gentleman also give any information, in possession of the Government as to the counter-claim from the Irish Free State under Article 5?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure I have that, but I will certainly give the House all the information I have, and I apologise beforehand for any possible disappointment.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Would this be the right moment, Mr. Speaker, to repeat the question which I put yesterday as to Standing Order 67, or shall I defer it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member may perhaps put the question to me now.

Captain BENN: As you are aware, Sir, Standing Order 67 lays down that a Money Resolution is required for the release of any party from any obligation due to the Crown. In the Bill which is now before the House I find that paragraph 2 of the Schedule, line 35, says:
The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article 5.
The point I wish to put is, whether under our Parliamentary forms, which are designed to retain in the hands of this House control over expenditure, the release of this obligation does not involve a Money Resolution in connection with this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Since the hon. and gallant Member raised this point yesterday, I have looked most carefully into the question along with my advisers. I have examined both the Article to which he has just now referred and the Article in the original Agreement, and the result is as follows:
It was laid down and agreed that the Irish Free State should assume an obligation for a certain expenditure to be settled by agreement or, failing agreement, by arbitration, there being also certain sums to be ascertained in the same way which would be set off from the first liability.
The relevant words of Standing Order 67 are
or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown.
Under the earlier Treaty, the sum is not ascertained, nor has it yet been ascertained. It is possible that the sum to be set off might prove greater than the liability of the Free State. It would seem to me, therefore, that to describe such an unascertained and hypothetical
debt as a sum of money owing to one of the parties would be an undue straining of the words of the Standing Order.

Captain BENN: May I ask whether, therefore, your ruling is based upon the assumption that the sum of money due from the Free State might be less than the sum due from Great Britain?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, it is not based on an assumption, but it declines to be based on hypothesis.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: May I very respectfully ask whether in giving that ruling, Sir, you have taken account, of Article 43 in the supplementary heads of the working arrangements for implementing the Treaty, arrangements which were made in January, 1922, but which were not presented to Parliament in the form of a White Taper until July, 1923? That Article 43, if I may respectfully say so, seems to have some bearing on this question.

Mr. SPEAKER: That was also examined by myself and my advisers at the same time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister, in the event of the; Ireland (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill being disposed of early, what other business, if any, is intended to be taken, and also whether he can to-day announce the business for Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to take the Ireland (Confirmation: of Agreement) Bill, the Government of India (Civil Services) Bill, the Land Settlement (Facilities) Amendment (Money) Resolution, the Mail Contract (Fair Isle and Sumburgh) Motion, the Coastguard Bill, Second Beading, which, I understand, is non-controversial, and the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, Motion, which was debated some, time ago in this House, but which, I think, is also non-controversial. At that point, assuming that we get as far as that, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will then move the Adjournment of the House. I am sorry that I cannot now announce the business for Friday, but I hope to do so to-morrow.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, with reference to the Votes which are to be taken in Committee of Supply to-morrow, it will be possible to take the Coal Mining Industry Subvention Vote before the British Empire Exhibition Guarantee Vote? I do not press the point, but it appears to be of major importance that we should have the discussion on the former Vote first, and that it might be for the convenience of the House.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think it would be better to take the Coal Vote first.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there will be an opportunity given to discuss the Government's policy with regard to the British Dye stuffs Corporation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should think that a discussion on that particular subject before Christmas is unlikely.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that here we have a case that is of interest in all parts of the House, where a large sum of money is involved, and does he not think it right to give an opportunity to discuss it? I do not want a long opportunity, but some opportunity.

The PRIME MINISTER: It may be possible to raise it during the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it is not so long before we shall be meeting again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in arranging the business before the end of the Session, he will consider the inadequate time that has been devoted to Scottish questions? I would point out, quite respectfully, that the recently himself paid a visit to Scotland and saw the conditions there in regard to housing and the important matters arising therefrom, and in view of the extremely acute position in Scotland, will he not consider the possibility of giving time to discuss Scottish housing before the Adjournment? It is admitted on all hands, even by the Minister of Health, that the position there is more acute than in England.

The PRIME MINISTER: There, again, it is entirely a question of time. It is always a pleasure to me to have a Scottish debate.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Consolidated Fund Bill which will arise out of to-morrow's discussion will not be strictly confined to what is in that Bill, namely, the British Empire Exhibition Guarantee and the Coal Subvention? I ask that because the Prime Minister stated just now that we could possibly discuss the Dyestuffs Corporation on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, if the strict rule were followed, that discussion must be confined to subjects contained in the Bill, but I will consider the point further.

The PRIME MINISTER: May I say, with reference to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that I

had thought of the point which was referred to you and it occurred to me that there would be ample opportunity for discussion on the Estimates. It might well be that there would be very little discussion of those points on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we should then have the rest of the day for raising the subjects that hon. Members might wish to debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: The suggestion of the Prime Minister is the best way of meeting the wish of the House.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided Ayes, 285: Noes, 126.

Division No. 470.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gee, Captain R.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Gilmour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Clarry, Reginald George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C.
Goff, Sir Park


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Grace, John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Grant, J. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Greene, w. P. Crawford


Astor, Viscountess
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cope, Major William
Grotrian, H Brent


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Couper, J. B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Crook, C. W.
Hall, Capt. W. O'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Berry, Sir George
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harland, A.


Bethell, A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Betterton, Henry B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, G. J. C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhawpton, W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hawke, John Anthony


Blundell. F. N.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dixey, A. C.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hennessy, Major J. R. Q.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elveden, Viscount
Hills, Major J. W.


Briggs, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S. M.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Homan, C. W. j.


Brown, Maj. D.C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hope, S r Harry (Forfar)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Falls, Sir Charles F.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster. Mossley)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fermoy, Lord
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Burman, J. B.
Fielden, E. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Finburgh, S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fleming, D. P.
Hudson. R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh"n)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ford, P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Huntingfield, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Frece, Sir Walter de
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)


Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott. A. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Joynson Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Oakley, T.
Smithers, Waldron


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pease. William Edwin
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden, E.)


Lamb, J. Q.
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Lane-Fox, Colonel George H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Philipson, Mabel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Loder, J. de V.
Pielou, D. P.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Looker, Herbert William
Pitcher, G.
Templeton, W. P.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Radford, E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of. W.)
Ramsden, E.
Vaughan-Moroan, Col. K. P.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wallace, Captain D. E.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


McLean, Major A.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Watson, Bt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macmillan, Captain H,
Remnant, Sir James
Watts, Dr. T.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, S. R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Malone, Major P. B.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Rye, F. G.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Meller, R. J.
Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sanderson. Sir Frank
Wise, Sir Fredric


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sandon, Lord
Womersley, W. J.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Murchison, C. K.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wragg, Herbert


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) 
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ. ,Belfst)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W.G.(Pirsf'ld.)
Skelton, A. N.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Colonel Gibbs.


Nuttall, Ellis
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Owen, Major G.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Baker, Waiter
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayes, John Henry
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Or. Drummond


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, T.
Snail, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Day, Colonel Harry
Lanspury, George
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Dunnico, H.
Lea, F.
Stamford, T. W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Taylor, R A.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Tinker, John Joseph




Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Windsor, Walter


Varley, Frank B.
Westwood, J.
Wright, w


Viant, S . P.
Whiteley, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Wiggins, William Martin



Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Warne and Mr. Charles


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhonda's)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Edwards.


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — IRELAND (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is to confirm the agreement which was come to a few days ago between the British Government and the Government of the Free State and the Government of Northern Ireland, to confirm and amend the settlement which the Treaty of 1921 made law in the early days of 1922. It is not, perhaps, inaccurate to say that just as, partly owing to the lapse of time, and partly owing to the growth of a finer spirit, it was possible to ratify the Treaty of Locarno—following the Treaty of Versailles—so it is found possible to-day to make a step in advance towards peace between the North of Ireland and the Free State by superimposing this. Agreement on the one which was passed four years ago.
If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will note that I have to deal, first, with the first Sub-section of the first Clause which is, indeed, the operative part of the Bill. This is the part of the Bill which contains implicitly the Schedule, the latter it self being the Agreement. I would ask the House first to look at the Agreement, and, by way of illustration of what I am saying as to what is possible to-day with what was possible four years ago, to note that the first four paragraphs contain in themselves expressions of amity, concord and goodwill which would have been deemed impossible four years ago by this country or by any of the parties to the Treaty. one has only to look back for a moment at the circumstances in which that Treaty was passed. It was passed during the great armistice which came in one of the bloodiest period of internecine strife that Ireland had ever known. It was an Agreement carried through almost -against time. It was an Agreement which, indeed, was ratified by this House, and which I supported in a speech with my whole heart, as I would again
to-day support it. It was a grand act of faith. Even those of us who had the most faith in it could not but be conscious of the difficulties and dangers that lay around that Treaty, both from the nature of the circumstances in Ireland at that time and also because, owing to those very circumstances, there were one or two points left in the Treaty which really were not settled but were only postponed to same future day of settlement—questions which at that moment were too difficult to settle.
I remember very well the late Mr. Bonar Law making his first appearance in this House in December four years ago after his retirement on the ground of health. In a speech supporting the Treaty, he said that the only serious objection to it was Article 12, the Article with which we are dealing this afternoon. Article 12 we propose to revoke by this Agreement and by the power of this Act. I would ask the House for a moment to consider what Article 12 has meant in Ireland. Owing to no fault of those who concluded the Treaty, owing possibly to the way in which that Clause was drafted —and I feel very strongly that: it could not have been drafted at that time more definitely and clearly than it was—the expectations of the Free State were aroused no less than the apprehensions of the North, and yon had on either side of the Border a feeling living all the time, and at the same time growing up with threatening force, of these expectations on the one hand and those apprehensions on the oilier, which made those who were most really anxious for the peace of Ireland feel that until the boundary question was settled and out of the way there could be no question of permanent peace in that island. It resulted in the maintenance in the North of that large force of Special Constabulary which was, in itself, a charge, and to which the Government of this country felt that it owed a duty to subscribe.
During the four years that have elapsed a better feeling has undoubtedly arisen along the Border. Yet the very fact that a better feeling had arisen made all those who were following the history day by day view more anxiously the risk of that feeling being disturbed by some unhappy decision, or, indeed, by a decision which might commend itself to one of the two parties but which might not win the approbation and the support of the other
side. So far as the Government of this country and the Government of the Free State are concerned, they have adhered in the letter and in. the spirit to the Treaty which was signed between them four years ago; and it was because of their loyalty to the Treaty that last year this House, at the instigation of the Government then in power, implemented the Treaty by setting up the Boundary Commission, at the request of the Free State,
As the House knows, By Act of Parliament the Report of the Boundary Commission had to become law the moment that it was promulgated. I am convinced, whatever Commission had attempted to deal with that question, whatever body had had to deal with it. it would have been beyond the power of mortal man to give any decision which could have been equally acceptable to both sides of the Border. Had the Commission remained united to the end, and the unhappy circumstances not- occurred which led to the breaking-up of the Commission before it made its Report, and had a unanimous Report been made, then I think it is highly probable—at least, it is certain—that the Report would have been presented, and highly probable that the Report would have become effective. But I am dear that neither that Report nor any "Report would have become effective without leading at the best to a prolonged unsettlement along the Border, and very possibly to trouble of a kind which we are at the moment relucant to contemplate. I would say here that the House must not be misled by any statements that have been made as to the contents of the Report of the Commission.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): Hear, hear:

The PRIME MINISTER: ; The map that has appeared and the statements that have been made are., in many respects, far from accurate. I am in the position of being the only one of the three Prime Ministers who has seen the map and has seen an advance proof of the portion of the Report which was to have accompanied it. My two colleagues, Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave, for reasons of their own which I fully appreciate, have not thought, fit to see these documents,
and they do not intend to see them in any case. It was in anticipation of a situation arising fraught not only with difficulty but with danger that the Governments came together to discuss what could be done The Governments, as the House knows, came to this Agreement, but all the while there was hanging over them and over the country the Report of a Commission; for it must be clearly remembered that the Commission are an entirely independent body over whom, once set up, no Government have any power or authority. If they choose to issue their Report to-night, there is nothing to prevent them doing it, and their Report would have the force of law. Therefore, it was necessary to see—we saw them last Thursday—Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. Fisher.
I wish here to say a word about that interview. We had to tell the Commissioners that we knew how prolonged and arduous their labours had been, and the sacrifice of time they had made to carry out the work entrusted to them. We had to tell them that, however much their Report could be justified, as it could be, in law and in equity, yet we were convinced that the issue of that Report-—and I say again the same applied to any other Report—would bring conflict and misery in Ireland; suppression might bring, probably would bring, peace. I cannot speak too highly of the way in. which Mr. Justice Feetham met us. He said at, once that he rejoiced that an agreement had been come to, which appeared to him to be a far better thing than any result that might be imposed upon the people, and that- so far as he and his colleagues were concerned no question of amour propre,, no question of wounded pride. no question of the loss of their time and their labour, and the feeling that, possibly, it had all been in vain, would weigh for one moment with them. I explained to him, and I am sure the House will agree, that though their labours at the moment may seem to have been in vain, yet they really are bearing fruit far beyond what could have been expected when that Tribunal was set up, for had it not been from the, may I say belated, realisation of those responsible for the two Governments of Ireland of what an imposed boundary might mean, we should never, the three of us, have been brought together in that Conference that providentially ended in such an agreement as
we were able to conclude. That must be the consolation and the reward of the Commissioners, and I think it is a real one.
The award itself will not see the light. It will be presented to the Government and put away with their archives, for publication, possibly, in some future year, when, maybe, the Irish boundary itself will arouse about as much excitement in Ireland as Offa's Dyke or Hadrian's Wall between the component parts of this island. I wish to-day, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to record in the most unqualified way our sense of gratitude to the Commissioners. I record our sympathy with them in the position in which they have been placed. I do this because I consider they have been most unfairly attacked. They have been charged with giving way to improper influence and to political pressure, with having allowed their judgment to be distorted by outside influences. They have been unable to refute these charges publicly, because they were begged to keep silence even from good words until we had secured the passage of this Act. It is entirely in deference to our appeal that the results of their labours are being suppressed. Their failure, if failure it was, was a failure inherent in the situation. It was rooted in the indefinite terms of Article 12, in the inevitable postponement from 1921, because the difficulty could not be resolved at that time. There is little use in agreeing on the revocation of Article 12 unless at the same time you can amend the Treaty of 1922 in such a way as will take out of it every possible source of friction, every possible source of trouble in the future. It would be an incomplete work if we left it at this point.
5.0 P.M.
Now I come to the second Clause in the Agreement, the revocation of Article 5 of the Treaty and Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule of the Bill. I wish to make some observations before I come to the details of these Clauses. When I spoke about leaving in the original Treaty a subject of friction or of trouble in future years, I was not alluding to the definite payment of a definite sum of money. It was a different kind of friction and trouble I was thinking of. What there is in Article 5 is a perfectly indefinite possible liability, undefined, and as such it hangs round the neck of those whom it concerns, and indisputably, whatever the
result of arbitration in future years might be, the existence of that Clause as it stands affects their credit. We have to remember this. Had there been no settlement of the Boundary question by agreement, one of two things would have happened. You would either have had chaos in Ireland as the result of a decision which was not acceptable either to the North or to the Free State, or you would have had the award, which could and would have been put through, but would have left behind it, either in the North or in the Free State, a sense of injustice, a sense of having been unfairly treated, a sense that they had been deceived. I do not say that would have been deserved, but I do say, without fear of contradiction, that that would have been left behind. Under the circumstances of the case, I think it is much more likely that it would have been left behind in the Free State than in the North. Had that been the case conceive the atmosphere in which this Government would have had to have proceeded to arbitration on the original Clause 5 of the Treaty. It would have held out no hope of a permanent settlement, no hope of agreement, nothing but the prospect of creating one more of those festering sores in the life between Ireland and ourselves which it has been the supreme object of British statesmanship for many years past to eliminate.
Let us look for a moment, by way of preface, at one or two facts connected with the economic position of Ireland which I think are hardly familiar to Members of this House unless they happen to he close students of Irish affairs. As soon as the Treaty operated in the Free State the country was plunged into civil war. the new Government had to maintain an army of 50.000 men, costing in 1923 £10,000,000, in 1924 £7,000,000, and that in a country whose revenue amounted to £26,000,000. The damage done cost them £10,000,000 in compensation alone, apart from damage done to public property and the inevitable losses to trade and commerce. Moreover, and this is a point that I think will come as a surprise to many Members of this House, the Free State Government are collecting the land purchase and local loans annuities, which will continue for many years under past legislation, to an
amount in round figures of about £3,000,000 a year and are paying pensions to police and civil servants retired from public service in that State to an amount of over £1,600,000. That latter payment will not, of course, last for nearly as long as the former, but the point I wish to impress upon the House is this, that between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 of that amount is being paid annually and will be paid outside the country, being paid to this country. It is an external debt and that while Ireland is suffering from an adverse trade balance. She is suffering from that as we are, but it does not make the payment any easier. As a matter of hard fact, the Free State is paying outside her own borders a, sum that is calculated at not less and may be rather more than one-tenth of her revenue, a greater sum proportionately than this country is paying out in similar conditions. It is difficult to estimate what we have to pay out outside our own borders; in any case, I feel certain that it is not as much as one-tenth of our revenue. I think that those circumstances, when you come to consider the question of finance as between Great Britain and the South of Ireland, must have due weight given to them, and they are circumstances which are not present to the minds of moat people in this island.
Where does the interest of Great Britain lie? Does it lie in keeping the South of Ireland poor and trying to squeeze debt out of them? As a matter of pure business, and that alone, the interest of this country lies in a prosperous Ireland, and it must do so for two very good reasons. The first one is this, that Ireland ought to be a great market for our manufacturers, and the second reason —and this is rather a selfish one—is this, that if you have a prosperous Ireland Irishmen will work in their own country and will try and make their own country rich and prosperous. A poverty-stricken Ireland means a continuous flow of immigration of a poor class of people into Great Britain, where at present our own problem of unemployment and bad trade is as severe as we can face. For those two reasons, if for no other, our interest lies in a prosperous Ireland, and one of the reasons why I commend this Bill so whole-heartedly to the House is that I believe that if Irishmen themselves will
follow on in the spirit in which they have negotiated these Amendments to the Treaty prosperity w ill be assured to them.
Now I must trouble the House with a brief statement of the position—so far as I can explain it—of the finance. My right hon. Friend who will speak later will deal with any points which may be raised during the Debate, but as I undertook to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), I think it only right, in introducing this Bill, that the House should be put in possession of all the facts I can lay before it. Under Article 5, the British Government have put forward a preliminary claim as a basis for discussion. This claim was that the free State should assume a capital liability in respect of the public debt of the United Kingdom and War pensions as existing at the date of the Articles of Agreement, and the amount put forward was £128,000,000. The addition of the accrued interest would increase this sum to £155,000,000, or I might express it in a form easier to understand, as an annuity of about £6,250,000 for 60 years. But this claim was subject to abatement—and here we get into the region of hypothesis and very difficult calculation—in respect of the value of British assets connected with public debts, including the proper share of the Free State in our claims against the Allies and reparation receipts, and also subject to discussion of the Free State counter-claims under Article 5, as to which we have no concise knowledge. In default of agreement the question was to be settled by arbitration.
It will therefore be clear to the House that the amount which might have been awarded, to whomsoever it was awarded, is wholly speculative, and it is an x in the equation to which now no solution will ever be found. In consideration of the abrogation of this undetermined liability, if it be a liability, under Article 5, the Free State have now undertaken to bear full liability for compensation for material damage done in the Free State area since January, 1919, and to repay to the British Government the amount which this Government has paid or is still liable to pay under the previous agreements. Those amounts are calculated at something; over £5,000,000, and the representatives of the Irish Free State offer to discharge that obligation by
immediate payment of £150,000 and an annuity of £250,000 for 60 years from the 1st April next. That offer has been accepted by the British Government. The initial payments due from the Free State Government under this Agreement will be set off against payments amounting to approximately £900,000 which would have been made to the Free State Government by the British Government under the existing Agreement.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Will that payment be in cash?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will come to that. The boundary settlement will enable the police forces in Northern Ireland to be placed on a more normal footing. The British obligation, which we have always felt on this side of the House to assist the North of Ireland in maintaining this force, will therefore cease after the present financial year. To assist Northern Ireland in meeting the expenditure necessarily involved in maintaining the force since last April and demobilisation, we have undertaken to ask Parliament to vote a Grant-in-Aid of £1,200,000 as a final payment by the British Exchequer in aid of this force. I wish to make it abundantly clear to the House and to the country that this agreement makes no change of any sort or kind in the obligations, whatever they may be, which the British Government have undertaken towards those who have suffered injury to person or property in the Free State either before or since the truce. It is purely a transaction between the two Governments, and it does not mean that any individual who, before the present Agreement, was entitled to look to the British Government, must in future look to the Free State. It in no way affects any of the arrangements previously made for the alleviation or relief of distress arising out of civil disturbances which took place in the Free State during the period covered by this Article of the Agreement. The Irish Grants Committee continues in being, and the Committee which the Government recently promised to set up will operate as though the Agreement had never been made.
In addition to the financial obligations which I have endeavoured to describe, the Free State Government have undertaken to promote legislation increasing by 10 per cent. the measure of compensa-
tion under the Free State (Damage to Property) Compensation Act, 1923. The Free State are alone responsible for compensation in respect of damage done since the truce of June, 1921, and that compensation is awarded under the Act referred to. The meaning of this provision is that everyone who has obtained a decree under that Act and everyone who has obtained a report, that is to say, a recommendation by the court, for an ex gratia payment by the Free State Government, will have the amount of his decree or report increased by 10 per cent. This, of course, will apply not only to those persons why may feel that they are entitled to look to the British Government for assistance but to everyone who has suffered damage for which compensation, either statutory or ex gratia, was payable under the Act. The Free State representative estimated that the cost to the Free State Government of this Article would amount to approximately £1,000,000, payable in 5 per cent. stock redeemable in 10 years. We believe that this increase will provide a substantial measure of relief to those who have suffered. As I have already said, we do not regard it as discharging the British Government from any obligation which it made itself in the past towards any of the sufferers.
Now I come to Clause 5 of the Agreement. That deals with the Council of Ireland Services. I think the House will remember that separate Parliaments were to be established in Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, but certain services, railways, diseases of animals, and fisheries were allotted to the Council of Ireland, consisting half of representatives of the Free State and half of representatives of Northern Ireland. Under the Articles of Agreement the provisions relating to the Council of Ireland were kept alive in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland alone, so that if and when this provision came into effect the Free State would have had the complete and solo control of those services within her borders, but the Free State would have had a 50 per cent. representation in Northern Ireland.
It is quite obvious that to put that into force to-day would be a source of great trouble in the future. The Free State agreed soon after the Treaty came into force to postpone that portion of the
Treaty for five years, but in two years' time the Free State would be able to demand her representation. By this Agreement she surrenders her right and gives to Northern Ireland complete control over those services, as she herself has in the South of Ireland. It has been represented that this is a retrograde provision in that it adds one more element of permanency to the partition between Northern and Southern Ireland. The contrary is the truth. To enforce a settlement on Ireland whether regarding the control of the services or the boundary must indefinitely put off the day, if that day should ever come, when North and South may unite; and it would afford a better chance of a union, in Ireland some day when they can agree between themselves on this union than if they had a settlement imposed upon them, and especially if that settlement were imposed upon, them from across the water. Let me remind the House that we must read the words of this provision in the light of the words at the end of the Article, namely, that
the two Governments of North and South shall meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of the exercise and administration of the powers in question.
These words were put in, not only with the consent of Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave, but at their desire, and there is a real intention on the part of those two men that these words shall be translated into action.
Now I have finished with Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, and it only remains for me to say a few words about Sub-section (2). As I have often told the House when I have been dealing with Bills, I am not a lawyer, and I confess that the words of Sub-section (2) convey nothing to me. This is what they really mean. For the purpose of greater accuracy, I have provided myself with something in writing. Sub-section (2) fixes the 1st April next as the day on which the Council of Ireland Services in Northern Ireland are to be transferred by the British Government to the Government of Northern Ireland and repeals as from that date the provisions in regard to the Council of Ireland laid down by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The date has been chosen because it
coincides with the end of the financial year, and any other time would have made it more complicated with regard to those services. The proviso in this Subsection authorises the continuance of the present position with regard to railway rates and charges in Northern Ireland until the Parliament of Northern Ireland have had time to legislate.
I have described, as I have been best able and at greater length than I intended or should have desired, the provisions of this Bill which I am commending to the House this afternoon, and which I hope the House may think fit to pass to-day. There is no doubt that a Measure of this kind is like to bring a little sooner that peace and settlement in Ireland which we all desire, and, it passing such a Bill, the more readily and the more wholeheartedly it is done the more apt it will be to fulfil what we all hope. The Irish border is in a way an accident of history. It has been an accident fraught with terrible events in that history to Ireland and to this country. For the first time in history, you have Irishmen themselves agreeing as to what that border shall be. That is an Immense advance. I remember at the time when the Treaty passed this House four years ago, I had the honour of speaking last in the Debate in December, 1921, and I used one phrase: —
We have in the Agreement the seed* of peace.
That was true then, but the ground at that time was hardly a fertile soil. It was a question whether those feeds would ever germinate, but I wish to say in this House that during this last fortnight I could have had no more staunch, loyal helpers in the cause of peace than Mr. Cosgrave and Sir James Craig, and I wish to express my gratitude to them for their courage and for their statesmanship. I wish also to express my gratitude to those of my own colleagues who have worked so hard on the details of this settlement in order to bring it to a successful conclusion.
Now, in this House and throughout this year, we have been engaged in much strenuous and controversial work, and sometimes our struggles have been bitter, and so they will be in the future. But there are two pieces of work to which this House will have put its hand by the time we go to our own homes for
Christmas, two pieces of work that will have received the almost unanimous support of all parties, both directed to securing peace, one the Pact of Locarno and the other this Pact here. It is impossible to say what may accrue from this. I would not put our hopes too high, but, at any rate, for the first time the Irish people are agreed where they have never been agreed before.
The two peoples or, rather, the four peoples, the Irish, the Welsh, the Scottish, and the English, have indeed been through the fire during the last 10 years. They will never feel again as though they had not passed through it, and time alone will show whether those people will emerge as dross or as purified by the refiners fire. I have always believed it would be as purified by the refiner's fire, and I believe that in the future, building on these foundations and seeking for that peace which we have tried to embody to-day, we may all of us, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, as component parts of the great British Commonwealth, rise in time to the full height of our stature for the betterment of ourselves and of our own people, for the betterment of our own Empire, and of the whole world.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have listened to one of those characteristic speeches of the Prime Minister which, from beginning to end, we all recognise as giving expression to absolute sincerity. But, curiously enough, the Prime Minister this afternoon seemed to jump over, as I feel bound to point out to the House, various episodes and important decisions in connection with the Irish history that he has given us. I cannot help drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, in approaching this problem to-day, when we go into the Lobby, as we shall do, in support of this Bill, we shall be adopting in connection with Irish affairs precisely the same attitude that we adopted when we were on the Government side of the House; and incidentally, I may remind my right hon. Friend that that attitude is not quite the attitude that was adopted towards us. When we took office, we found ourselves in the difficulty which the Prime Minister has already pointed out. We found ourselves called upon to interpret something, namely, Article 12, about which we knew nothing. We
refused to give any interpretation, because we recognised then what the Prime Minister proves to-day—that to attempt to impose a settlement on Ireland by any outside authority was not only likely to cause trouble, but was ultimately doomed to failure.
The first thing we did as a Government was to invite Sir James Craig and Mr. Cosgrave to meet us, and I do not mind saying now that the first suggestion we made as a Government to both of those gentlemen was this: "You yourselves agree amongst yourselves to say that Article 12 shall not operate." The very first proposal that we as a Government made to them both was the very proposal that is now to be embodied in an Act of Parliament. Why did we make that proposal? We made it because any knowledge of Ireland, whether it were North or South, proved conclusively, to us at least, that the only way to get permanent peace was by both sections mutually agreeing amongst themselves. Unfortunately, we failed. We gave effect to Article 12, and we gave effect to it in spite of the opposition of my right hon. Friend. In spite of everything that was said against us, in spite of the challenge in this House, in spite of the challenge in the country, we said, "This promise is a promise by England to Ireland, and we intend to ratify it." That was our attitude.
We appointed the Boundary Commission, and here let me say that I associate myself whole-heartedly with everything the Prime Minister said about Mr. Justice Feetham. He is not the little, pettifogging lawyer that some people have called him. He proved, as the Government must admit, and as they have very generously admitted to-day, that he was not only a big man, but recognised, whatever may be said about his chairmanship or about the Commission, that his first obligation was to bring peace to Ireland. Therefore, I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with everything that the Prime Minister has said in that connection. There is, however, an old saying that Irishmen, North and South, only agree when they are getting something out of England. That was the experience of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the experience of the present Chancellor, it has been the experience of everyone, and,
incidentally, it is the experience in my own union. Our members, both in Northern and in Southern Ireland, all agree that there is plenty of money in London, and they always unite in trying to get it. Therefore, I can quite understand that, when this announcement was first made, there were a number of people who merely approached it with the feeling that it represented another attempt to bleed the British taxpayer.
I want to say quite frankly what my view of Article 5 was. Let me observe that, although there have been many questions about Article 5 in this House, I think those on the Government benches who are now responsible for Article 5, and especially my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will agree that neither he nor anyone else who was a party to that settlement ever assumed that Article 5 could be given effect to until Article 12 had been determined. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will agree with that interpretation. Not only was it impossible to separate them, but by the very nature of things, the one depended on the other. I have heard the calculation of my right hon. Friend that the Treasury estimate was somewhere in the region of £150,000,000 under Article 5. I think £128,000,000 was the first figure, with interest up to £150,000,000. I understand that that was the Treasury estimate of what Article 5 was worth to the British Exchequer. I also had an opportunity of hearing what the South of Ireland's estimate of Article 5 was. 11 was put to me that the estimate nf the South of Ireland—and they have made some wonderful calculations— was £250,000,000 due to them. As one who knows something of the Irish temperament in this matter, I quite frankly told my friends, and I think it was the view of all of us who were connected with it, that when we got down to brass tacks and attempted to estimate any value so far as pounds, shillings and pence were concerned, in the case of Article 5, we must write it down as nil; and I should have no hesitation in saying that that must have been the view of anyone who had gone carefully into the question and made anything like a calculation.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. All I can say is that, if he is anticipating very
much revenue out. of it, I hope that, if he is making any forecast on any other items, it will prove more profitable than even his anticipation has been in connection with this, or God help us next April! But, whatever the view may be, whatever the estimate may be, whatever may be said on one side or the other, there can be no doubt that you cannot estimate peace in connection with this great question on a mere balance-sheet of pounds, shillings and pence. No one could say what the ultimate cost to the British taxpayer would be if trouble arose, and, therefore, I do not approach it in that spirit. But, on the other hand, I want to put this point: Although the boundary is said to be stereotyped at the moment, the value of this settlement will not be the abrogation of Article 12 and Article 5, but it will be the meeting together of representatives of the North and South to deal with, to administer, and to settle things that are common to both; and I believe that, just as when people who have differed in the past, who have been almost enemies, have been thrown together, they understand each other better, and I believe that that in itself will be the befit guarantee of peace in Ireland that could be provided.
I hope, however, that not merely the letter but the spirit that is behind this will be manifest in North and South. I hope, for instance, that in the North It means that the Catholics will themselves take part and contribute to the well-being of Northern Ireland. Instead of isolation, instead of boycotting Parliament, instead of standing aloof, I hope that, as a result of this settlement, we shall find the Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland taking part and contributing, as they can contribute much, to the well-being of Northern Ireland. I hope, equally, that that spirit will prevail in the South. I hope, also, that the spirit of which the Prime Minister spoke will be given effect to. There are a number of prisoners in Northern Ireland at this moment, and I believe there are some in Southern Ireland. If I can make any appeal here, let me say that there are people in this country who feel very keenly for those prisoners. There are people in England and in Scotland who not only are deeply interested in those prisoners, but who believe that, if this great scheme is to be the success
we all desire, the real spirit of peace and good will must enter into the whole thing, making a clean start by releasing those people as evidence of that new spirit. I have to say, on behalf of every member of my party, that we not only wish well to the scheme, we not only say we hope it will be a real and final settlement, we not only say we will do nothing to hamper or cripple the settlement, but we are entitled, in making those statements and giving that assistance, to voice this appeal on the Floor of the House of Commons to both Governments, and to say to them, "Now is the time to release your political prisoners; now is the time, when you are making a fresh start."
There is one other question that I should like to ask the Prime Minister. I could not quite follow all the details of the finance as he read them out, but I presume my right hon. Friend is going to deal more fully with them. Do I understand that the £1,200,000 referred to is a final grant for the constabulary of Northern Ireland?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Mr. THOMAS: Do I understand that it is independent of all existing commitments.

The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing has been taken as yet in the Estimates for the current year.

Mr. THOMAS: It is a final instalment, due exclusively in connection with the constabulary. There is no other commitment of any sort or kind implied or understood in this Agreement at all. I only want to know that quite clearly, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will deal with it when he comes to reply. There may be criticisms about the finance of the Bill. It may be that there are people who will even to-day say the British taxpayer is making too much sacrifice. So far as my knowledge of Ireland goes, I have no hesitation in saying that Members in all parts of the House ought to welcome this settlement. It will enable the Irish people to see that, whatever may have been their complaints in the past about the treatment of them by the British Government, since the Irish Treaty was made we have fulfilled and discharged every obligation. That, I think, will be admitted on their. side, and it is only fair that the British people
should understand some of the difficulties of the Irish Free State. No one without knowledge of their financial difficulties can appreciate all they have been up against, and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the way they have performed a difficult task and at the same time endeavoured to be faithful and honourable to their obligations. That is the spirit in which we approach this settlement, not in a desire to make any party capital, but to say to the Prime Minister, "You have done well in this. You have made a good settlement. But please remember that, just as in Locarno, you reaped where we sowed; we prepared the ground for this settlement."

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: I think there will be very great regret in the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who has been so long, so closely, and so prominently associated with the handling of Irish problems unfortunately should be absent to-day. On his behalf, and speaking for my Liberal friends and associates on these benches, I wish to offer to the Prime Minister and the Government our unstinted congratulations upon this Irish settlement. We welcome it, not only as affording a satisfactory settlement of a very perilous and difficult controversy, but also as offering the bright hope of a happier chapter in Irish history in the future. The. Prime Minister alluded, in his eloquent and sincere speech, to the difficulties inherent in Article 12 of the Treaty of 1921. Those difficulties were indeed formidable. They did not become easier as time went on. I have very little doubt that the solution which has now been so happily reached is by far the best solution of the problem that could be conceived. It is certainly a great advantage that the boundary question should be settled by the accord of British statesmen, the representatives of the Irish Free State and the representatives of Northern Ireland, rather than that it should be imposed on the country by the award of the Commission. I wish to associate myself with the tribute the Prime Minister has paid to the statesmanship and moderation of Mr. Cosgrave and Sir James Craig and also the width of view, the self-control and the statesmanship of Mr. Justice Feetham.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) indicated that there might be in various quarters of the House some dissatisfaction with the financial provisions of this instrument. I admit that, when we consider the estimate which the Treasury formed in the first instance and the various burdens as to which we are about to have some painful reminders in the course of the next few days, the financial side of this operation is likely to give a good deal of anxiety to many Members of the House. But I am wholly in accord with the Prime Minister in thinking that, even if the sacrifice is great—and we cannot, as we pointed out, estimate its dimensions—it is a sacrifice well worth incurring in the cause of Irish peace. I very well remember the discussions between Ireland and England that arose many years ago as the result of the Report on the Financial Relations between the two countries, and when I was concerned, as I was, as a Member of the Government with the drafting of the Act of 1920, one of the great difficulties was the difficulty, -indeed the impossibility, of forming a just estimate of the claims on the one hand and the counter-claims on the other. I, therefore, very heartily welcome an arrangement under which all these perplexing and irritating sources of financial difference may be swept out of view at one blow. I am sure the Prime Minister has done wisely in including a financial settlement in the same instrument as that which is primarily devoted to a settlement of the boundary question, and I hope very much that the voice of the British taxpayer, hard pressed as he is, will not be too loudly heard.
We on these benches have always cherished the belief that if Ireland were ever to be given responsibility for managing her own affairs, our faith in her capacity and her integrity would not be misplaced. We have held that view for many years. We have urged it, and I think the events of to-day prove to us that our faith has not been misplaced. The solution, indeed, has not some in the exact way in which the leaders of Liberal thought expected it would come. We did not, I think now, give full weight to the deep and sincere sentiment of Protestant Ireland, and I believe the settlement that has now been reached—a settlement
under which the Protestant Irishmen of the North and the Catholic Irishmen of the South are left free to work out their own destinies, and to combine when it appears to them reasonable that they should combine on matters of common interest affecting both sections of the community—holds out a real hope of an enduring Irish peace. I remember very soon after the outbreak of the War I was in the company of Lord Morley, who took a view very unfavourable to the war policy that was followed by the Liberal Government. I remember his closing a discussion on the War with these words:
Remember there is a little island on the other side of St. George's Channel with its wounds unstaunched, with its wrongs unredressed, waiting for justice, When the War is over, you will hear of Ireland.
We did hear of Ireland. Ireland passed through some of the most tragic and tormenting years of her unhappy history, but in the end statesmanship found a way out, and, fortunately, the statesmen were not confined to one party in the State. Conservatives and Liberals, and I will gladly add members of the Labour party, too, worked for a settlement that should be enduring. So we earnestly welcome this Bill as marking a further stage towards the conciliation of both sections of Irish political thought and political opinion and as affording an earnest of the reconciliation of the Irish and British races all over the civilised world.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. D. D. REID: Perhaps it is fitting that a representative of an Irish constituency should say a word on this Bill. I am afraid I must deal with the matter on a lower level than the eloquent speakers who have preceded me. May I remind the House that, between the time of the introduction of the Irish Treaty Bill and the time last year when the Bill was brought in by the Labour Government enabling a member to be appointed to the Commission in place of the Commissioner to be appointed by Northern Ireland, we placed it on record that it was our view that the proviso under Article 5 of the Treaty, which set up the Boundary Commission, was not justified at any time in view of the pledges made to those who were responsible for accepting the Act of 1920 in the North of Ireland. I have no wish to go into what has happened since
that time, but now we find, as the result of this Agreement and the Bill which proposes to carry it into effect, that our contention is sustained—we find the boundary is loft unaltered and therefore I need hardly say we welcome the Bill. I f hon. Members who talk so glibly about unrest had lived through times like there have been near the border, when people are distracted from their ordinary occupations, when they are not only distracted in mind but have the time taken away from their ordinary occupations, we should probably hear less about finding our own salvation. What we want is to have causes of friction removed, and in this question of the border we have one cause of friction removed, and therefore we welcome the Bill. There is a second point, the Council of Ireland. When the Council of Ireland formed part of the original scheme, to deal with certain general services in Northern and Southern Ireland, there was a reason, perhaps, for its existence, but when it was confined to Northern Ireland, and when it only enabled representatives of the Free State Government to interfere with certain services in Northern Ireland, it had practically become nothing more nor less than a bargaining council. It would only have been the means of introducing a great deal of difficulty. That has been cleared out of the way and we welcome it.
Hon. Members who have spoken have, perhaps, somewhat exaggerated the disunion between North and South. It is true that we have different views on many subjects, but it is not true that we live in an absolutely cat and dog state. The practical result of this Bill is that we have two great potential sources of evil, two great potential sources of trouble, cleared out of the way, and for that reason we frankly welcome the Bill. As to Article 5, I agree with the view taken by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). I do not believe that Article 5 would ever have produced any appreciable revenue for the British Government. Therefore, when Article 5 is given up it means very little in hard cash. I do not think the British taxpayer need feel aggrieved about that For these very commonplace reasons, we welcome the Bill and wish to see it passed into law as soon as possible.

Mr. ROSSLYN MITCHELL: This is a good Bill. It is the first contribution which the Unionist party, or the Conservative party, have made to the prosperity of Ireland. It is the one and only thing for which the Irish people have any cause to be grateful. It seems to me that this country is in danger of being chloroformed into forgetting the past, by the unction with which converted rakes talk about their good actions of the present. Throughout the whole length of this controversy there has not been one helpful contribution made towards healing the wounds of Ireland or assuaging her sorrows from hon. or right hon. Members on the other side of the House. The fact that this Bill is brought forward is a definite and complete vindication of the men of the past who for 40 years were slandered and reviled by Members who sat opposite in this House. It is a complete repudiation of the whole policy of the Unionist party from the day it was formed right up to the time when it culminated in the Black and Tan policy of the party which now sits on the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House.
I am not going to talk about the money part of this Bill, because the liabilities of peace are always negligible compared with the costs of war. In this Bill, whatever sacrifices there may be, they are negligible, if they bring peace to Ireland, compared with the enormous expenditure which would have been involved in any development of dis-peace. I cannot help wondering what would have happened in this House if, in the course of time and the change of circumstances, a Bill which involved the sacrifice of a potential, and perhaps unrealisable, asset of £150,000,000, had been brought forward from these benches instead of the benches opposite. I can imagine the country being stirred by the fervid eloquence of those whose names I see appended to this Bill. I can see the newspapers, in the control of men whom we would look upon as perverted if we Sid not know they were imbecile, filled, from the "Christian Herald" to "Comic Cuts," with malignities against the Irish, with charges of treason against the Socialists, with talk of our being lovers of every country but our own, and of our being willing to scatter broadcast the pinched and parched resources of this
struggling island for the sake of bribing votes from the Southern Irish who dwell in this country.
I can imagine the wonderful rhetoric with which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whom I have sat with delight and instruction so frequently—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope you have profited by it.

Mr. MITCHELL: He would have stirred not the minds but the passions of the people, over which he has much more control, by his speeches in regard to the Socialist Government daring to introduce a Bill of this kind. It has been introduced as though the whole record of the present occupants of the Government Benches had been one of kindness and benignity towards Ireland. There used to be a custom that men who came to the Bar of the House of Commons went down on their knees. The last man who made obeisance in the House of Commons bore the unusual name of Baldwin. It would be not an unfitting thing. I think, if the Leader of the Unionist, Conservative, Tory party, in bringing in this Bill— which he has been driven to bring in. not by the impulses of justice but by the influence of the facts of force in the past—had come to this House and asked forgiveness on behalf of his party for the havoc, the tragedies, the misery, the woe and want which he and they have caused in that unhappy land.
The whole history of this country has been shouting lessons to the Tory party about their conduct in Ireland. The monuments which we see in St. Stephen's Hall are daily proclaiming lessons to which the Tory party have not listened. They have had the lesson of the United States, they have had the lesson of Canada, they have had the lesson of United South Africa, and yet. they went on until they even corrupted right hon. Gentlemen of the. Liberal party to their way of thinking, and they wound up with the Black and Tans. Have they not yet-learned the tragic and pathetic futility of this effort to dominate another set of people with the ideas and the policies which we ourselves have?
There are other problems to be solved. This Bill is a declaration that the Unionist party have been wrong Tight through in their attitude to Ireland.
There are now other problems to be considered. I will not speak about the problem of Home Rule for Scotland, because there is not there a problem which excites the same passion and the same misunderstanding. There is the problem of Egypt. There is the problem of India. There is the problem of China. There is the problem of Africa.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): This Bill does not range over the whole world. It refers to Ireland.

Mr. MITCHELL: I agree that it does not range over the whole world but the principle which is embodied in this Bill has affected the whole world and may yet affect the whole world. The Prime Minister has, very largely, the future of this country and of many other countries in his hands. He is, if I may say so, without either the effect or the appearance of flattery probably the most lovable man in public life to-day. If he would learn by the history of this Bill and would apply his mind to the problems which confront this nation in other spheres, and, instead of listening to the whisperings of the dull and twilight souls which surround him, would rely upon his own sure instinct be could abolish all this idea of domination. He could completely destroy all those sorrows that come from misunderstanding. He could recognise that other civilisations of great age are built up under different traditions. Then, instead of having Britain looked upon as a tyrant, as she is it some places, he could have her looked upon as a nation that uses the pure gold of statemanship, that makes those who hate us love us, that makes those who fear us have faith in us, and that makes those who are suffering to-day receive from this great nation the blessing that can come whenever one great nation touches another. The choice is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
I am glad that this Bill has been brought in. I shall vote for it with a full heart. I only hope that the lesson will be carried further over a wider area and that we may have in other parts of the world the same blessings of peace, understanding and good will that have been brought, however tardily and it may be reluctantly, to the sorrowing island across the sea.

Colonel GRETTON: I will not attempt, even for one minute, to follow the nights of imagination of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He appears to consider that the highest act of statesmanship is to haul down the British flag throughout the world and to make speeches of beaugeste to the rest of mankind. That is not a policy which the people of this country are as yet, thank God! ready to accept. I return to the subject of the Bill before the House. Frankly, it is a Bill which takes the place of what has been from the. beginning a bad business. It is; a distinct improvement, in my judgment, of the situation. May I ask the House to consider how this case has arisen. I need not go further back than the Home Rule proposals which were brought forward by the Liberal Government shortly before the commencement of the Great War. In the negotiations, the claim of Ulster to he still included under the British flag was urged most strongly, and the Ulster representatives at that time were always ready to accept the present boundary, or something very nearly like it. The case was raised again in 1916 and in 1920. The whole difficulty regarding the boundary has been that those who represented, first, the Southern Provisional Government, and later the Free State Government, made claims to large areas of the territory of Northern Ireland which it would have been impossible to concede, and which the Boundary Commission was well advised to set on one side.
The British Ministers did not act wisely over this Boundary Commission. Article 12 was put into the Treaty in order to get agreement toy the representatives of Southern Ireland in 1921. It was not desired by Northern Ireland, and there was no reason why any British Minister at that time should have desired to keep the boundary question open. It was a characteristic device of the Government of that day to get over the difficulty. The Commission was set up. One of the great difficulties in obtaining a settlement in Southern Ireland was that all parties of politicians in Southern Ireland held out exaggerated hopes as to what the result of the Commission was to be, in the accession of territory to the Free State. When it was found that these great accessions of territory, which
had been ignorantly and wrongly anticipated, were not to be realised, the Government in Dublin found itself in a difficulty. I am conscious that they, in the interest of the Free State, have come to the best conclusion possible by accepting the position as it stands, and as it might have been stabilised in 1914, 1916, 1918 and 1920. The whole matter, moreover, has been a cause of great expense and anxiety to the Northern Ireland Government.
I want for one moment to turn to the case of the British taxpayer and Article 5. The Prime Minister, in representing the burden which the Free State have to bear in the form of exporting cash to this country, took rather an extreme view. One of the payments which he mentioned, about £4,500,000, is the old payment under the Land Purchase Acts. Those Acts, passed by successive British Governments, enabled tenants in Ireland to acquire their land at a very low rate of purchase by paying an annuity—a rate which was generally lower in total than the rent which they had paid before they had any purchase attached. Those payments were made without difficulty, and there were extraordinarily small arrears, amounting to only a few hundreds a year, while the British Government ruled in Ireland. The case is not so easy now, for the Free State Government are having difficulty in collecting these annuities, and I am informed on credible authority that there are some 22,000 warrants out for non-payment of arrears. However that may be, this is a payment in the form of rent, which was formerly collected without difficulty and paid to those who advanced the money for the purchase of the land under the various land purchase schemes.
Then there is the payment for civil servants and others whose liability to pension was taken over by the Free State. Many of them are still living in Ireland, but a considerable number have come over here. They have come here because they were the loyal servants of the British Government, and they found that residence in some parts of Ireland was far from comfortable. What is the British taxpayer sacrificing in payments under Article 5? He is sacrificing something, some important moral claims. Northern Ireland undertook the same obligations as were undertaken by the
Free State. Northern Ireland punctually-paid every penny, but the Free State have done nothing of the kind. Whatever the reason or excuses, the Free State never paid one penny, and it has never hitherto made the British Government fix what the amount of these contributions should be. Mr. John Dillon, a well-known Member of this House for many years and a prominent Irishman who has a great knowledge of Irish affairs, declared that the annual payment should have been some £10,000,000, and others have agreed as to that sum. It has been said that there are high counter-claims which may be set against this payment of debt. In his speech, the Prime Minister said frankly that they had never been formulated. No, they never have been formulated, because no serious man in his senses with any knowledge of finance or the facts would accept the exaggerated sums talked of loosely in Southern Ireland, and such claims have never been presented to any British Government. They were derisive claims.
There were, no doubt, some off-sets of one kind or another, but, on the other hand, the payment by the Free State of the share of War debt and War pensions would have been a substantial and serious relief for the British taxpayer. There has never been hitherto any sign of any intention to pay one penny. There are very few in this country who know anything of the situation in the Free State and the way in which these financial questions have been dealt with hitherto, who believe that any substantial sum would have been paid. In fact, it is said that the British Government have made a good arrangement because they have sacrificed no money. There is a good deal of truth in that view. The Government of the Free State have shown no eagerness to meet their obligations. For that reason, I think that the British taxpayer, in the long run, is sacrificing very little money in abandoning Article 5.
There is another aspect of the case. What is going to happen in regard to the payment of damages? There was the rebellion against the British power and the later rebellion against the Government of the Free State. The damages amount to very large sums. A terrible tale of sufferings and loss has been told.
An extraordinary arrangement in the Treaty of 1921 was that the British Government would undertake to pay damages inflicted by its armies and its Black and Tans up to the time that the Provisional Government was set up in Tune, 1920, and that after that date the Provisional Government, and, later, the Government of the Free State, should undertake to pay for injuries. That has worked out in this way. The British Government undertook to pay damages claimed and approved, which were inflicted in the days of the rebellion, and the Provisional Government and the Free State Government undertook to compensate those Irishmen and others who had been loyal to the British flag and had supported British rule in Ireland so long as it lasted, and had suffered in consequence.
What has been the effect of this agreement? A Commission has been set up and the claims first dealt with were those claims made by the adherents and friends of the present Government in Ireland. The Commission could go no further until the terms of reference were extended in the early part of this year, so as to include a wider class of cases. The British Government have met their obligations in full. In the last vote taken in this House on that account some £900,000 was voted to be spent. What has been the case as regards those, in Ireland who are loyalists? A very great number of them have been driven out. because the persecution and the boycotting have by no means ceased in Southern Ireland, though they are less prevalent than they were. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Free State Government are doing their best to suppress than kind of thing. But the Free State Government is not a very powerful Government, nor is it a very stable Government. No Government founded upon violence, upon arson, and upon assassination can expect to be powerful or stable. They themselves in the days of the rebellion created the very state of things which it is now their duty to repress. They are face to face with the spectres of their own acts. I would remind hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House that every act of statesmanship, good or bad, has its consequences.
This is not the time nor the place to go through a long catalogue of the wrongs
which have been suffered by the unfortunate people in Ireland who were abandoned by the British Government. The British Government have done what they can up to a point;, but the Ministers of succeeding Administrations have been very shy about pressing the Free State Government strongly upon these cases of damage. At last in another place, in consequence of a Debate during the summer, it was agreed to set up a Committee to investigate cases of claims for compensation by loyalists. That Committee has not yet sat, although it was appointed in July. I hope it will proceed without delay, and that such cases as it may find to require pressing will be dealt with vigorously, and that steps will be taken to see that they are met justly if not generously by the Free State Government. The point in most of these cases seems to be concerned with what are called consequential damages, which have hitherto been ruled out by an official set up in Ireland to deal with damages.
Let me give the House an instance. There was a hotel keeper who had been a sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and during the bad times a party of nine or ten of the Royal Irish Constabulary were ambushed near his Hotel, six or seven being killed. He went out and brought the bodies and the survivors into shelter, and nursed and cared for those who were wounded. In consequence of his action, his hotel was raided, plundered and burned, and the little land he had was taken from him, and, under threats to his life and to the Jives of his family, he was driven out of Ireland and was never able to go back. That man gets no compensation, in so far as damage he suffered comes under the head of "consequential damage."
There is another class of case which should be pressed very strongly. It is the case of a man who had a small property in Ireland with a house. A farm which was attached to the property had been let for several years, but he had not been able to collect one shilling of rent. This man was driven out of his house: the house was burned, and the contents were lost or destroyed, and the demesne was taken over by others. This man has been served with Income Tax demands by the Free State Government as if he were still occupying the house,
and he has, in fact, paid the claims for Income Tax. The other day he went to the Commission and obtained an award of some thousands of pounds, and the whole of that award was immediately claimed by the Irish Free State Government for unpaid arrears of Income Tax of which he know nothing until he received the award. The award was sequestrated, and not a shilling of it has been paid. That case, I happen to know, is now before the Government. It is a shocking case, and no one in this House would defend an action of that kind.
I came across another case of the same kind the other day. It is the case of a widow who had a very small property. The little land she had was taken from her; she could not collect her rents, and, after a long time, the case came before the Commission, and there was an award. The Free State Government claimed Income Tax in respect of the land—the use of which had been denied to her because they had not kept order and protected her—and their claim came to within a few pounds of the total award. That is the kind of thing which is going on, and which we urge the British Government to take up. Surely, these are things which ought to be settled at this time. There has been great generosity on the part of various British Governments in dealing with the Irish question, and I venture to claim in this House, that generosity should be shown in such oases by those who have received generous treatment from us.
I fear the hopes which have been expressed in the eloquent speeches of this afternoon that this is a final settlement of the Irish question will prove to be unfounded. Those of us who have been in politics for a generation and more have seen many Irish settlements, each one of which was said to be final. I fear we shall find the Government of the Free State again in difficulties. They will come again for assistance to the Government of this country, then we shall have another settlement—we shall have one more "final settlement." This House, I venture to think, will be wrong if it does not face the real state of things in Southern Ireland. Southern Ireland is in the hands of politicians, and the politicians of all parties are united in one respect. The foundation of their polities
in the preaching and promotion of hostility to this country. I do not believe this state of things will last for ever, but at present, whether it be the Free State politician or the Republican politician, that is the foundation of their action. I will not detain the House by giving instances, but any hon. Member who cares to read the Irish papers will find confirmation of my statement. I always deplored—I looked upon it as one of the greatest crimes ever committed by a British Government—the abandonment of the unhappy, helpless people in Ireland to the things which they have gone through since the British Government, in a moment of weakness and enthusiasm and sentiment, laid down its responsibilities and handed over millions of people to an unhappy fate. However that may be, this Bill, so far as it goes, will be accepted by the. House, and I for one have no intention of opposing it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The last speaker seemed to tempt certain Members of this House into the discussion of very deep and controversial affairs, and I think his references to the Free State Government were particularly unfortunate. He said that Government was the product of the bomb, of rebellion and—even worse—of assassination, and that any Government so founded was bound to be bad. Whether it be true or not, I think that remark, coming from a Conservative Member, is particularly unfortunate. If one is to go back to the foundation of the Free. State Government in this connection one must also go back into the history of what caused the Irish people to rebel. Who taught them the business of shooting? One will find that it is not into the Free State. Government, but into the gun-running of Northern Ireland and the seditious speeches of Members of the present Government that we must look, and. if we do so, we shall possibly by much nearer the origin of rebellion in Ireland. I for one resent the hon. and gallant Member's remarks just as I would resent them if they were applied to the North of Ireland.
My object in rising is to express the view that we here cannot settle the affairs of Ireland. We must remember that yesterday the Bail met in the Free State and, whether we like it or not, there was a minority definitely unconvinced of
the wisdom of this settlement. The only people who can make it a settlement are the people in the North and the South of Ireland. I have no complaint to make against the Government's financial terms. I do not grumble at the liquidation of a debt of £150,000,000. Indeed, I only wish the Government had gone even further and wiped out this proposed payment of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, because I am convinced that £150,000,000 or £160,000,000 is a cheap price to pay for peace in Ireland. Peace and prosperity, however, can only come to Ireland if the mass of the common people are prosperous and peaceful and. comfortable. We have to remember that the Free State Government—and I am not criticising them for this—on account of the smallness of their revenue and the demands on their exchequer, have had to economise, and one of their chief economics has been the reduction of payments to old age pensioners. These old age pensioners were citizens of this country when the pension was granted, and I would like the "British Government to liquidate all debts and make it a condition that the old age pension in the Free State should be restored to the amount at which it stood when the British Government was in control. That would have been a gesture to the people of Ireland showing that we were concerned for the welfare in the poorer section of the community there.
The right hon. Gentleman who was Colonial Secretary under the Labour Government referred to the question of Irish prisoners. It may be argued that these men have been convicted of criminal offences, but all of them took action for political reasons, and none of them can be characterised as criminals in the ordinary accepted sense. I want to see this Treaty given a proper, decent chance of success, and it can only be a success if goodwill is engendered on all sides. We cannon secure goodwill if we have in this country, quite apart from. Ireland, a certain number of Irish people who think that these prisoners are being wrongly and even badly treated. One of the big gestures that could be made would be for the Governments of the North and the South of Ireland, and even of this country, to unite in saying, "We are going to make a clean, fresh start, and no person who from political motives has com-
mitted a criminal offence shall be retained in prison." I want to ask the Government if, in future negotiations, they cannot impress upon both the North and the South of Ireland the desirability of this taking place. There are in Scotland at present still two or three Irish prisoners separated from their wives and families and kept in prison.
There has been nothing said about the people who are really involved in this settlement, namely, the folk who are residing on the boundary between the North and the South. Are they prepared to accept the settlement arrived at today? I have grave fears that they might not be prepared to accept it. I do not accept even this financial concession as big enough. I would like the Government to wipe the slate clean of every financial debt that the Free State and the Northern Government owe us. Allow them to make a fresh start and to devote their future revenue to making the conditions of the common people better than they have ever been. Politics do not make a common bond. The bond that makes people come together is their usefulness in life and how far they can get good out of their working-class conditions, and I hoped the Government could have gone further than they have gone. Our problem of Ireland, and even of Protestantism in the North and Roman Catholicism in the South, is sometimes not only confined to Ireland. Sometimes it spreads to this country too, and I hope this settlement will mean that people will face their social problems, not as Roman Catholics, nor as Protestants, but as working folk and as people wanting to make their nation a better nation than hitherto.

Captain EDEN: I think the House was in closer sympathy with the speech to which we haves just listened, at any rate, the earlier part of it, than with the speech which was delivered by the last hon. Member who spoke from those benches. I can at least agree with my hon. Friend opposite that no good will certainly be done by delving into the past either of political parties in this country or of political parties in Ireland, and though it may be a very delectable pastime to stir the pools of acrimony, it is not a pastime from which we shall derive any profit whatever. We can hardly expect that any agreement will meet with universal approval from
all sections of opinion in this House or in the country. There is first that section of critics which sincerely believes that the flaws in this Bill are numerous, so numerous, perhaps, as to outweigh its merits, and we have also the smaller section of the public and of the Press which is determined to be satisfied with nothing, which enjoys dissatisfaction. Listening to the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past week, I gathered that the bane of his life were those who indulged in the practice which he picturesquely described a? tariff-mongering. I can tell him of a practice which is worse than that, and that is the practice of gloom-mongering, and for those who indulge in that practice we can offer no cure but to ask that they should visualise what would have happened had the Government failed to bring about this agreement, the bitter recrimination and the suspicion, breeding mischief, which would have inevitably resulted.
I think all sections of the House will be prepared to congratulate the Government on the promptitude with which it dealt with the situation. In a case like this delay is inevitably dangerous, and engenders suspicion, which only too often in the past has been the atmosphere which has hovered over these negotiations, and the promptitude of this settlement is by no means its least merit, leaving no bitterness born of sustained haggling and months of bargaining. I confess to being glad that the boundary remains as it has been for the last four years. I do not pretend to think that it is the best boundary that the mind of man could devise—far from it—but it has one transcendent advantage, and that is that it is the boundary to which those who live alongside of it have become used. Those of us who went last autumn to visit the boundary areas told the House, when we came back, of our firm conviction that it would be dangerous to attempt to transfer any section of the territory under the jurisdiction of one Government to the jurisdiction of the other, not because we did not admit that anomalies existed, but because we felt that habit, custom, and use, which had to some extent brought peace to the boundary areas, should not be disturbed. Men, after all, even Irishmen, are creatures of habit, and this Bill, in that it continues the existing habits of every day, and does
not ask the people on the boundary to start all over again, in a wise measure, fostering progress.
There is, I know, criticism on the- financial side, upon which I do not propose to enter, except to say that surely here as in other financial matters a bird in the hand is still preferable, even if it is a small and fluttering bird. I would ask the House to remember that last year, when these discussions were in progress, the present Foreign Secretary, replying to a suggestion made by my noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) said that it would be no poor investment for the British people to invest money to bring about peace in Ireland. That is undoubtedly true, and while I do not admit that the balance sheet is ill drawn, I say it is not fair to take it at sight on a hard cash basis, because we have assets on the credit side which cannot be realised in terms of hard cash. We have the asset of the improved trade and employment which must result, and one other important asset which has not been touched upon, and to which I would draw the attention of the House.
For years past, for a century or more, conditions in Ireland have resulted in creating in Europe from time to time a difficult, embarrassing atmosphere for British statesmanship. Everybody knows it. Nobody who has studied public opinion abroad during recent years will deny that the running sore of the Irish difficulty has been a source of anxiety to us in Europe. With those who did not like us, with those who wanted a weapon for anti-British propaganda, the weapon was there. With our own friends, it has sometimes been a cause of tension, and even within our own Empire the effect of Irish disputes has had a direct and frequent repercussion. That is an aspect of the settlement of which we should not lose sight.
It has been stated that this Agreement is the direct outcome of the spirit of the Agreement at Locarno. I do not think that is quite true. I think it goes deeper than that. It is a spirit that is abroad to-day that has made the Locarno Agreement possible, and that has made this Agreement possible, also, Without that spirit both these Agreements could never have been. At Locarno the European horse was ready to drink, and last week
the Irish horse was willing to drink. Tentatively, we may dare to hope that the spirit of the after-the-War years, carping, enervating, intolerant, inflaming passions and fostering suspicions, has been laid, and that reason vanquishes prejudice.
We have heard already pious hopes expressed that the result of this Agreement will be to bring Irish unity closer. I hope that endeavours on this side of the Irish Channel will be confined to the expression of such hopes and will not take the forms of direction or advice, however well meant. If the Anglo-Saxon wants to bring about Irish unity, the best service he can render, in the light of history, is to keep silent on this subject. But in the case of the relations between Great Britain and Ireland there is no such embargo upon speculation. We have no rules to guide us as to what the future may hold, except that the unexpected invariably happens. Ireland is a country of surprises. May we, perhaps, hope that this if? the last, the greatest, the eternal, surprise that the Irish people will spring upon their Anglo-Saxon neighbours, that amity will reign within and without, between the North and the South, and between both and this country, and that an understanding will grow all the stronger for the difficulties of the years gone by? At least, we can say that one source of dispute, of trouble, and of suspicion has been removed. Mutual knowledge must do the rest. Bickering is ever a child of ignorance.

Mr. HARNEY: As a Southern Irishman, I feel that I ought to say a few words in this Debate. I would like at the outset to congratulate the Prime Minister, not only upon the part he has played in effecting this settlement, but upon the very conciliatory and, I should say, noble expression of what he has done that he has given us to-day. It was in very strong contrast indeed to another speech that we heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton).

Mr. J. JONES: All the bitters come from Burton!

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HARNEY: I will not say that is what ails it. Out of a 40 minutes' speech delivered for the purpose of commending the Bill to the House. 36 minutes were
devoted to corroding the very spirit that underlay that settlement. I am one of those who believe, and I know a good deal about Ireland, that it is destined sooner or later to become a political unit if for no other reason than that economic considerations are constantly tending in that way. That happy period is being deferred always by one influence or another. In the last two years it has been this boundary. When the Act of 1920 divided Ireland into two, it was only natural that the line should create bitterness, mutual recrimination, which ricochetting one from the other should have brought about a festering sore. That is now four years ago. These recriminations have been dying down. The people on one side of the line are beginning to adjust themselves to the position, and what was rightly felt by all those engaged in the settlement, the Premier of Northern Ireland, the Premier of Southern Ireland, and our own Prime Minister was, I should think, that it is far better to leave such old wounds as were created by the line which was drawn in 1920 to heal themselves than to create a new line which would make new wounds. It would be a new laceration, not merely as the old one was of one Ireland, but of two Irelands. However bad the first line may be, it is better to have the old grey line than to draw a new red one as would undoubtedly have been the result.
There is a good deal more that the settlement has done. The mere fact of the two Prime Ministers' meeting was a recognition by the peoples that they represent, that after all it was better for both parts of Ireland to be on friendly terms. Although both of them repudiated the Council that was created by the Act of 1920, because it was put upon them, both of them now have said, "We will substitute for that Council Cabinet Conferences." They will adhere to that because it is of their own making. I, who know Ireland, can assure the House of this, both North and South are of that temperament which is hot-headed and sensitive. Though they may quarrel among themselves, the House may be assured that at bottom, in their inmost hearts, they like one another better than they like any outside people. If they are
let alone, if these irritating influences are removed for a time, then I have not the slightest doubt that in a time measurably nearer this country will have the advantage of discovering what we Irishmen have always known, that Ireland is capable of becoming one country, a prosperous united country, and a country that is loyal to England.
I have not a word to say about the financial part. I think it is quite likely what the late Colonial Secretary said that, while the claim of this country could be measured at £150,000,000, the counterclaim will be very much higher. A settlement now has been made, not to settle differences between two contending Powers, but by the voluntary action of the parties themselves, who come over here to London and say, "We have both discovered that the fight which has been going on for all those years past is foolish of us. We are anxious now to forget all about the boundary, to let it pass into the limbo of buried controversies; to substitute for it free conferences in the well-founded hope that in a few years considerations of business and of mutual assistance will create one undivided and contented Ireland; will end the fend between north and south, and end the feud between this country and Ireland, which is a matter of centuries." The Prime Minister has to-day put his hand to that settlement, and what he has said to-day so touchingly and feelingly honestly represents the spirit of the work which he did.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I am sure it will be agreed in all parts of the House that this Debate has been maintained on a very high level of sentiment. There is, however, one consideration and one class of people who have been strangely ignored throughout the whole of this case, and that is the long-suffering British taxpayer. I yield to no one in the House in my admiration for the temper, and I say this with the deepest sincerity, in which the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I will strive to emulate that temper. In one-sense that is not at all difficult for me, for ever since I fought my first parliamentary election—I am sorry to say 39 years ago—I have been very deeply concerned with this question. Ever since that day I have tried to make myself
more and more intimately acquainted with every phase of this Irish question. I have traversed every part of Ireland, and most ardently and most sincerely do I desire that peace may be finally restored in that island—or rather I should say will be for the first time established in that island.
Let me come to the details of the Bill. The first operative Clause of the schedule deals with the question of the boundary. The Prime Minister told us that the Treaty was an act of faith, but he also intimated that faith could not issue in good works until the boundary question was out of the. way. He said that if we got no settlement of this question one of two things would happen. Either there would be chaos in Ireland, or there would be on one or other side of the boundary a lingering sense of injustice and unfairness. I do not for one moment deny that there is a large measure of truth in that observation, and I hope that we may now regard the boundary question as out of the way though I myself would be very sorry to leave that question without one word of high tribute to the great services which have been rendered by my fellow-Wykehamist, Mr. Justice Feetham.
One word, in the second place, on the Clause in the Bill which deals with the virtual disappearance of the All Ireland Council. I recall the debates which took place in 1920 on this question. Under the present Bill, powers granted under the partially abortive Act of 1920 to the Council of Ireland will be automatically transferred to Northern Ireland—Clauses dealing with railways, fisheries and diseases of animals. The House will remember that that Council was intended to pave the way to the ultimate union of the two Parliaments which were then to be set up in Dublin and Belfast, I can only say in reference to this matter of the Council that I feel unqualified satisfaction that any ambiguity which was still lurking in subsequent agreements and Acts regarding the position of Northern Ireland and especially ambiguities which are still to be found, or were till the production of. this Bill, in the second, seventh and tenth Clauses of the ill-fated Act of 1920, should be cleared up.
What I want more particularly to say a word or two about is in regard to the disappearance of the liabilities under Article 5 of the Treaty. I hope it will not be resented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer if I venture to make a very respectful protest to them, that they did not find it possible to issue before this Debate began a White Paper giving us details of its financial arrangements. I did my utmost to listen. I listened with all the attention I could to the explanation which was given by the Prime Minister. I am sure he gave it with all possible lucidity under the circumstances, but those details given to us in the speech of the Prime Minister ought to have been before the House in a White Paper before the Debate began. It was impossible, however attentive they may have been, for Members, except, possibly, the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. Graham), who I hoped might have spoken this afternoon, to grasp the details of that statement. That must be my excuse for putting one or two questions in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reply on this Debate.
In the first place—it is almost a farcical question, I am afraid—but I suppose we may assume as a fact that not one farthing has been received from Southern Ireland under Article 5 of the Treaty? I should be grateful if that point could be made absolutely clear. The second point to which I would invite the. right hon. Gentleman's attention is as to the arrears of the payments which were to have been made under Article 5 of the Treaty. So far as I followed the Prime Minister, he told us that the nearest estimate which the Treasury could give us of the total capital liability of Southern Ireland under Article 5 was £123,000,000, plus a sum which, with accrued interest, would bring it to £155,000.000. That is what I understood. Obviously, then, there is a sum of something approaching £30,000,000 for accrued interest in the liability, and as I understood the whole liability might have been discharged by an annuity of £6,250,000 for 60 years. I do not think that ever could have been possible for Southern Ireland, but they have entered into a contract, for the carrying out of the Shannon works, with a German firm, and are embarking on enterprises in all direc-
tions involving sums very considerably in excess of that amount. On that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to enlighten us.
The third point on which I should like some little further information is in regard to the amount of compensation for the malicious damage done in what I may call the pre-truce period, that is to say, the period between January, 1919, and the 11th July, 1921, the amount which has been actually paid on account of that malicious damage. I do not think the Prime Minister gave us that figure, but I should very much like to have it if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position give it. That amount, I fancy, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000, but, whatever it is, I understood from the Prime Minister—I should like to have it confirmed—that amount is to be paid to the British Government in cash, and not in bonds or stock. I pass to the financial point which is raised in paragraph 4 of the Schedule. under which
The Government of the Irish Free State hereby agrees to promote legislation increasing by 10 per cent. the measure of compensation under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923"—
That, I take it. is an Act of the Dublin Parliament—
in respect of malicious damage to property done in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State between the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the twelfth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
I am not quite certain as to the significance of that latter date, the 12th May, 1923, and I should like to know exactly what it means. The point on which I want information is this. What will that extra 10 per cent. for post-truce damage amount to? It is to be payable, I understand, in Irish Bonds. So far as I can make out, it will only bring the amount of the Bonds which have already been paid in compensation for that damage up to their par value—they stand at present somewhere about 90 per cent.—but on that point I should like further information. If it be true that the total liability under this section amounts to about £600,000, it follows that for the payment of about £4,000,000 in cash—that is the repayment to the British Government for malicious damage in the pre-truce period —and about £600.000, representing 10 per
cent. payable to the Southern Irishmen who have received compensation for injuries in the post-truce period. Adding these two sums together, we get a sum of about £4,600,000 in return for which we are to remit liabilities amounting to £155,000,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not liabilities— claims.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: Very well, we are to give up claims amounting to £155.000,000. This is a point on which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself may be particularly sensitive. I want to know what was the value of that £155,000,000 put in the original Treaty for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the present Government were very largely responsible. Perhaps I may be permitted to recall the exact words of the Article:
The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof"—
The date, of course, was the 6th December, 1921—
and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counterclaim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire.
I want to know what was the value of that Article 5 put in the original Treaty. Are we to understand that Article 5, which was the only financial consideration that Great Britain obtained under the Treaty, was from the first a brutum fulmen merely intended to throw dust in the eyes of the British taxpayer? When we were discussing the Treaty of 1921, or when we were discussing the Bill of 1922, was there any suggestion made by the authors of the Treaty or those responsible for the Bill that this was from the first an empty form? I frankly confess I am concerned, on behalf of the British taxpayers, about all these expensive gestures for peace. Are we alone among all the peoples of the world to pay our debt--, and without any reference to the debts due to us? We are unanimous in our determination to. pay, but ought we with such apparent levity—because the financial Clauses of this agreement seem to have been framed with levity—to aban-
don all hope of receiving anything from anybody else?
My final point is in regard to the Loyalists of Southern Ireland. I have great concern for the taxpayers of Great Britain, but I am also concerned as to the position of the Loyalists of Southern Ireland, that is to say, persons to whom compensation for post-truce damage was due. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a position to tell us what has actually been received in bonds for that post-truce compensation, and not only what has been received, but what they may expect to receive. I do not for one moment desire to question in regard to the perfect good faith of the Free State Government, but I would point out that if we pass this Bill, to the Second Reading of which we are asked to assent this afternoon, we do, as a fact, part with the last vestige of our financial power to secure compensation for the Southern Irish Loyalists. And what do we, the taxpayers of this country, get for this immense financial surrender? We are relieved of certain financial liabilities in regard to Northern Ireland, and we got the great satisfaction of clearing away a difficulty, I hope for ever, about the boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland. That is all.
I am very sorry that it should have fallen to one who is more concerned than, I think, most people in this House for the future of Ireland, who has had an intimate acquaintance with Ireland in the past, to have to dwell on details in this discussion which, to some people, may seem sordid, after the lofty sentimental atmosphere in which we have been moving in this Debate. But I do not think this Debate ought to close without putting these questions, and I respectfully put them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir WILLIAM DAVIS0N: I am glad that, even at this late period of the Debate, the position of the terribly overburdened taxpayers of this country should at long last have been put before the House. While we one and all sympathise and agree with the desire, in the lofty and eloquent words with which the Prime Minister commended this Bill to the House, from beginning to end of his
speech I could find no reason given why Clause 5 of the original Treaty had been abrogated. Everything that the Prime Minister has said could have taken place —the idea of friendship between the Governments—everything could have taken place had this original agreement still remained. Do let us just look at the facts of the case for one second.
First of all, the Clause in regard to the boundary ought never to have been inserted in the Treaty because the boundary was indelibly fixed by the Act of 1920, which gave Ulster, at the request of the British Parliament, a fixed area. Nevertheless, without consulting Ulster at all, it was provided that if she did not consent to come into an All-Ireland. Parliament a new boundary was to be fixed between her and Southern Ireland and that this boundary was to be fixed by a Commission. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. Ho will remember the very long Debates when the Treaty was before this House, and when we again and again appealed to him, at any rate, to define what the meaning of this boundary was, and that there should be limits fixed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Colonial Secretary, again and again told the House that the Treaty, as it had been entered into, must stand exactly as it was, that not a paragraph, not a word, not even a comma was to be altered in the Treaty; and that the House must take it, to use his own words, with all its advantages and all its defects.
It was provided in the Treaty, as hon. Members will remember, that one Commissioner was to be appointed by the British Government, one by Ulster, and one by the Free State. Ulster, having had this boundary fixed by Act of Parliament, and by this House, naturally declined to have anything to do with fixing a new boundary. The matter was referred to the Privy Council. The Privy Council held that this Clause in the Treaty was bad. What happened then? When we tried to get the Treaty made clear so as to show what the position of Ulster was, and that the rights of Ulster should not be materially damnified by what had been done, we were told that the Treaty was inviolate, and that no paragraph could be altered. When, however, the Free State finds that something
in the Treaty is not working as they anticipated it would work, then at once the Treaty is to be amended, and we have a Bill brought and passed in this House, altering a Clause in the Treaty, and providing that the British Parliament shall appoint a Commissioner in place of Ulster. For one and a half years this Commission has been travelling along the boundary of Ulster, taking evidence from the various parties, and at the end of October they had completed their researches. The three Commissioners appointed were prepared to give it unanimous decision. A map was actually initialled by the three Commissioners, showing the boundary as it was to be when the Commission's Report was published. Then the information gets out and is published, not precise but, at any rate, substantially accurate. What happens then? The Free State summon their Commissioner to Dublin and instruct their Commissioner to withdraw. Apparently they hope that by the withdrawal of one Commissioner the whole Commission will be knocked on the head. It appeared in public—

Mr. LANSBURY: Where?

Sir W. DAVISON: In the public Press. The Free. State, rightly or wrongly, considered that what the decision of the Commission consisted of was to be a give-and-take line—

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who published this so that the public knew anything about it?

Sir W. DAVISON: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well it has been published in the papers of the country.

Mr. LANSBURY: Where? How do you know it all?

Sir W. DAVISON: In the "Morning Post."

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, Oh!

Sir W. DAVISON: But what has that got to do with it—

Mr. LANSBURY: Criminal sabotage.

Sir W. DAVISON: That has nothing to do with my argument whatever, as to how it was published or by whom. I had nothing to do with this publication, but whatever the reason it became public that a give-and-take line was to be the judgment of the Commission and not the transfer of large areas, The Free State
Government then instructed their Commissioner to withdraw, and he did, apparently with the idea that this would prevent the decision of the Commission operating. That was a wrong idea because it had been held by the Privy Council that two Commissioners could give a majority decision, and that would have the force of law. What happened then? The Free State at once came over to the British Government in London and asked them to use their influence with the Commission not to publish their Report. I have no objection at all to that. I think it was very wise from the Free State point of view. I think it was very wise also for the British Government to consider those representations. They went to the Commission, as we have been told by the Prime Minister to-day, and asked them to wait to see if any arrangement could be arrived at. Eventually an arrangement was arrived at in regard to boundaries between Ulster and Southern Ireland.
What, however, I want to know is this: It is very material. It is all to the good—grateful we all are—that this arrangement as to the boundary has been come to between Northern and Southern Ireland. But why should the Free State be paid for doing something which they themselves asked should be done? I cannot see why the overburdened British taxpayer should be asked to remit what our Treasury—and our Treasury are not people very easily fooled—had put down as the probable amount due to this country--a sum of £155,000,000 of indebtedness. What was applicable in the one case should also be applicable for Ulster, but you have taken already £18,000,000 from Ulster in respect of her contribution to your National Debt and your War Debt, £18,000,000 have been paid.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says. "No." Will he tell us then what amount has been paid. I understand it is not very far short of £18,000,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On balance the sum is not much over £1,000,000 a year.

Sir W. DAVISON: Very nearly £18,000,000 have been paid altogether. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by the balance. But I
understand £4,000,000 a year has been paid. However be that as it may, a substantial sum will continue to be paid. What I want to know is why this part of the liability of the Free State has been remitted? The only explanation so far is that it is a gesture of friendship. What I say to that is that if a person has to be paid for being a friend, I do not want his friendship. I think it is all wrong to mix up these two things. Only the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that unless things improved in many directions he may have to impose a further charge in respect of Income Tax next year. When the taxpayers of this country are bearing this terrible burden and are threatened with even greater burdens. I say that the Government ought not to have waived this payment which the British taxpayer, according to arrangements which they made in the original Treaty, was entitled to have. In a New York paper I read yesterday a rather illuminating sentence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which paper!"] The ''New York Times," which says this:

"THE PNTIENT BEAST."

The Irish Boundary crisis has been exercised by a golden wand. In return for a substantial money consideration from that patient beast the British Exchequer, the Free State Government has agreed to postpone its claims on the unredeemed portions of Ulster.

That reminds me of an old tag which we used to sing when I was a boy at school
Somebody tickle the donkey's chin,
And hear the donkey bray,

A similar couplet might with more force be used to-day in regard to the British taxpayer, and the British Exchequer—
 Somebody twist the donkey's tail,
And see the donkey pay. Pay, Pay.

For the British taxpayer is paying all the time, whatever is done. I am glad the hon. Member for York has raised this point. I think it is a very material one. It ought to have been raised. I think the Government ought not to have given away this amount which the British nation were entitled to under the Treaty. There was no need for it, In coming to the arrangement in regard to the boundary, we are doing what the Free State has asked us to do, and the further gift is gratuitous, unnecessary, and uncalled for.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a considerable measure ox agreement among all parties of the House, and the statement of the Prime Minister was so full and comprehensive that only a few words are needed from me to suggest to the House that, probably, it will be for the general convenience that at this stage the Debate should come to an end. I have in the last two speeches been confronted, for the first time in the discussion, with a note of disagreement. The sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) were moderate. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to indicate a very sincere desire to impart into this Irish Debate some measure of old-time bitterness. I am afraid, however, that is beyond the eloquence of the hon. Member, for these questions are now passing out of the regions where they excited fierce passions in the House of Commons.
I am only going to trouble the House very briefly and to touch once again on the purely financial aspect of the question. Article 5 was inserted in the Treaty of 1921 by the strong authority of the then Prime Minister, who, with forethought and care over the interests of the British taxpayer, made it clear that the Free State should take over part of the liability arising owing to the separation of the Parliaments and Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland. He was absolutely right. There is no doubt whatever that when you have a separation like this there should also in consequence be a separation of liabilities. I have been asked what value should be assigned to Article 5. A great many qualifications must be entered. In the first place, it is admitted that great reductions must be made from the figures which the Treasury had formulated. What were those figures'? They are not an admitted liability: they are the statement of a claim, and a claim put forward on broad lines. Against that claim the Free State were entitled to urge their counterclaim, which has also been framed on broad lines. No one can say what an arbitrator would have awarded. We should certainly have pleaded and argued that in the Article the words "just and equitable" governed only the counterclaim and did not affect the Article as a whole; but if that contention had held good, I suppose we should have con-
sidered an award of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 very satisfactory from our point of view. Of course, if the words "just and equitable" were held by an arbitrator to cover the question of Ireland's capacity to pay, then it is probable that the arbitrator's award would have been very much less.
Anyhow, whatever the result of the arbitration, however the Article was construed, there can be no doubt that when the results were complete the British Government would have had to review the whole situation in the light of Ireland's capacity to pay. That is only what we do with every other debtor. I read out to the House a fortnight ago a long list of negotiations with different foreign countries which we had conducted to a settlement—with Belgium, with Poland, with Czechoslovakia, with Austria-, with Serbia, with Rumania, and with other countries. In all of these we scaled down the undisputed total of what was owing on grounds of policy and of good sense, and certainly some process of scaling down would have taken place in regard to the Irish Free State, whose economic and financial well-being is, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, a cause of special and continual concern to the sister island. Therefore, I do not at all accept either the suggestion that we had no substantial or valid claim, under Article 5 or the suggestion that there was a, possibility of our obtaining from Ireland £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a, year for a long period on account of Article 5. Mr. Do Valera, I see, calculated that £19,000,000 a year might be imposed upon Ireland for a long period under Article 5. If we were the cruel sharks he delights to make us out to be, such a demand would no doubt have been damaging to those whose interest he professes to represent; but so far as His Majesty's Government were concerned, it would have been impossible to approach this subject, even if we had the award in our favour, from the point of view of ruthlessly seeking to extract the last farthing we could, irrespective of the consequences which would accrue in Southern Ireland.
What is the capacity of Ireland to pay? Here, again, the point is disputed, but there are certain obvious considerations. First of all, for several years preceding the War, Ireland gained on the balance
financially from its connection with this country, that is to say Great Britain made no profit by taxation out of Ireland. More was spent on the administrative services in Ireland than the yield of taxation coming from Ireland to the Exchequer. In 1909 there was a loss of £2,250,000, in 1912 £1,400,000, in 1913 of £1,200,000. Practically every year before the War there was a net loss on the balance between, taxation and administrative expenditure on account of Ireland, and that was the time when Ireland included the most prosperous and wealthy portion of Ulster. War came and taxation was enormously increased, and administration and social services languished, and in consequence there grew up, especially under the inflated values of 1919 and 1920, a very substantial balance in favour of this country. But that was purely temporary. That was a condition which was bound to change as we returned to the normal. Then many other events intervened in Ireland. The Treaty was followed by a bitter struggle. We have been reminded that £20,000,000 of expenditure was casued to the infant government which succeeded to such a grim responsibility.
The indirect consequences of the separation of the Exchequers are also serious. Large pension charges accrued. About .£1,600,000 is being paid every year on account of pension charges, which the Irish Government have accepted as a necessary feature in the change which took place. There has been a serious falling-off in Irish exports. The absence of the Irish representation from this country removed a barrier which had for many years prevented the importation of Canadian cattle; and in other ways the separation which has taken place has imposed a great strain upon the smaller island. The Free State is a comparatively poor agricultural country. Apart from its famous beverage associated with the name of the Minister of Agriculture there are few important lucrative industries in Southern Ireland; and as the price of autonomy the Free State have already accepted a lower standard of public expenditure than rules in this country. They have lowered the salaries of their teachers, they have reduced their old age pensions, they have not followed out our later developments of unemployment insurance, or of pensions for widows,
or of pensions at 65 years of age. Their unemployment fund is heavily in debt, much more heavily than ours, and, generally, they have accepted a lower standard of State service. Nevertheless, in spite of hard economies, in spite of the fact that their taxation has been generally at as high a level, if not higher, than ours, they have had great difficulty in balancing their Budget. The process of cutting the painter is a costly process, however earnestly it is desired. The big liner goes on its voyage, the small boat-labours in a rough sea.
If we had embarked upon an examination of the Irish capacity to pay, the Debate might have taken an ironical turn. The representatives of the British Treasury would have dwelt upon the potentialities of Irish wealth, the prospects of large improvements and expansions in their prosperity once Irish affairs were exclusively in Irish hands, and the representatives of the Irish Free State would have been forced, on their part, to argue that nothing like the prosperity of the days of the Union was likely to be realised now that they were doing business on their own. But that Debate will never take place. It exists only in imagination. We can imagine its course, but what I cannot imagine is that this powerful country—with all its burdens a powerful, mighty community—could ever pursue against a small, weak nation claims which had no regard to the real capacity of that nation to pay, and which would have had the effect, if they were pressed to their ultimate conclusion, of not only affecting its prosperity but even its self-respect. What is there to build on in the enforcement of any claim? There is nothing to build on but the word of the Irish nation. Their desire and their self-interest as a new State to fulfil their obligations ought not to be exposed to the world as impossible. I do not undervalue either the natural pride or the self-interest that is involved in the maintenance of their credit. Having been in this Irish business all through I have been struck very strongly with their desire to maintain a strict financial independence and to discharge their obligations. His Majesty's Government, whatever the award, would not have been prepared to pursue that claim to a point
where that essential self-respect and desire to meet their undertakings, which is necessary to every country, would have crumbled under a weight far more than it could bear.
When the Irish free State representatives proposed that they should assume for themselves the burden of the compensation charges we have had to pay for pre-truce damage, amounting to approximately £5,000,000, of which £4,000,000 has already been disbursed by us, and that in addition they would issue 10 per cent. more stock to the victims of post-truce damage, we thought it perfectly right on our part to agree to the complete abrogation of Article 5. The method of ' payment has already been explained by the Prime Minister. It takes the form of annuities of £250,000 a, year for 60 years, together with an initial payment of £150,000 in the present year. But under the existing arrangements we were liable to pay to the Irish Free State a sum of approximately £900,000 in the next two years. These payments we shall of course, withhold, and they will form the first instalments of the annuities which they are prepared to pay, and also have the effect, as long as they last, of a. moratorium so far as the Free State is concerned.
8.0 P.M.
Now I will turn to the financial relations with the Northern Government, in respect of which I have been asked some questions. The whole of our financial relations with Northern Ireland have been affected by the delay in settling the Boundary question. It is quite true they are paying their contribution, but we have had to remit against that contribution in every year sums which have been nearly equal to the contribution. The reason has been, as the Prime Minister has pointed out that the whole life of Ulster was overhung by the anxiety and the menace of this boundary question. These parishes of Fermanagh and Tyrone have been the cause of every dispute which has prevented previous Irish settlements. They were the obstacles which broke up the Buckingham Palace Conference on the very eve of the War, and everyone knows that only a year ago this boundary question very nearly became a disastrous and dominating issue in our political life in this country.
But before you condemn the solution which we adopted in 1921 of a Boundary Commission, you must consider the position in which the country stood at that time. A truce had been made. A cessation of the so-called warfare had occurred. It was difficult to continue. It was almost impossible to recommence it. The boundary question was insoluble by agreement at that time. What other plan than that set forth in Article 12 was possible? What other plan was possible than this Commission with its careful inquiry, with its suspended judgment and with its breathing space for passions to cool. The only alternative to Article 12 and to the Boundary Commission in 1921 was an immediate renewal of a vile and detestable conflict which increasingly assumed the forms of murder and reprisals. Cast your mind back to those day. Measure the advance that we have achieved, and we all have reason, I think, to be profoundly thankful and to put away from our minds at once the militancy of my hon. Friend, and the extremely sour and malignant reflections of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell). All these four years the boundary question has hung over Northern Ireland like a nightmare, but at last we have reached a solution which completely solves and terminates the boundary question. An instrument has been solemnly signed which, as far as Ulster is concerned, concedes her full claim on the authority of the Government of the Free State. While the boundary question was in suspense. Sir James Craig and his Government felt it necessary to maintain between 30,000 and 40,000 armed special constables in various degrees of mobilisation. Every year, to every Government, they were bound to make their request for financial assistance. On the basis of there being no settlement, they were proposing to me, in the discussions which naturally take place with the Treasury, that we should provide for the maintenance of all the special constables in their present state of efficiency up to at least September, 1926, and they were pressing for a sum of £2,250,000 on that account. But so soon as this settlement was reached, Sir James Craig informed me that he would be able to proceed immediately with the winding up of the special constabulary, and in consequence we were able to agree upon
a final and terminating payment of no more than £1,200,000, and I shall accordingly present a Supplementary Estimate after Christmas for that amount.
I ought to tell the House, as I have been asked whether there are any other financial arrangements, that I also agreed not to charge the Ulster Government the estimated £700,000 which is the value of the equipment and stores which were issued to them some years ago when the constabulary was first set on foot. Although this figure seems a large one, it really is only a nominal valuation, because these were munitions of a kind which we had sold in other directions at figures very much less than that.
The Government have also been considering some questions connected with the conditions of unemployment in Northern Ireland and, in July last, we reached an agreement with the Irish Government on that subject, in regard to which legislation will be required in the new year. That has nothing whatever to do with this settlement. It was agreed upon between the Governments before anyone had the slightest idea that events would take the course they have, but I only mention that now because I am very anxious that at no future time it should be suggested there was any consideration of any sort or kind in regard to this either with the North or with the South, which had not been fully, frankly and clearly laid before the House of Commons.
A final and complete settlement has been reached, not on the Irish question— I am not so sanguine as to suppose that there is a final settlement of that; the Irish question will only be finally settled when the human question is finally settled —but there is at any rate a final solution of the boundary question and a solution which relieves Ulster from the anxiety under which she has lain so long. What does the Free State gain by the settlement of a boundary question? It seems to me that her gain is the greater. It was always a misdirection of Irish national aspirations to be so far unable to settle their affairs with their own fellow countrymen in the North as to have to invoke the assistance of a Commission, with an Imperial Commissioner, to draw a line of partition across the land. No one who takes a long view of the future of Ireland and her relations with the
British Empire can doubt that the scoring of this artificial line, wired in and defended as it would have been, in the troublous days which might have been anticipated, could have been other than a retrograde and false step. Far wiser, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, is it to leave the old country boundaries unchanged, as quarrels pass out of history and as animosities die, until at last that line is as far rid of sinister menace as the frontiers, which as the Prime Minister has explained to us, divide England from Wales and from Scotland.
We must not expect too much. I do not think His Majesty's Government are under any illusion at this time about Ireland. We must not expect too much. Injuries rankle, partisanship thrives, bitter feelings endure, and intolerance, born of centuries, will not be dismissed from the scene in the course of a generation. Those who expect to see too much will be disappointed. But neither, I think, need we expect to see too little. There very probably are Members here in this Chamber now who will live in a new Parliament to see the harvest gathered in and who will find at the side of Britain a free and united Ireland, proud of her undoubted share in founding the British Empire and actively contributing to its strength and progress.

Question put, and agreed in.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; road the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (CIVIL SERVICES) BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [4th December], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was: To leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—[Mr. Scurr.]

Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

Mr. LANSBURY: When the Debate was adjourned on the last occasion, I was
trying to point out to the House that this was a Bill to make provision whereby the pension and other payments due to certain civil servants in India would be safeguarded and that a large number of other lower-paid civil servants were left out. and that in fact the Bill was taking care only of a section and not of the whole. I was trying to make the point that the Bill was amending the Government of India Act, and instead of proceeding in this sort of way to take away certain powers from the Legislative Assembly and the Councils that had been set up in India, we ought not to safeguard the civil servants and others in this fashion, but that if they needed safeguarding, we ought to safeguard them by finding the money ourselves if we were not satisfied that the Indian authorities would do justice.
I want at the outset to join with the other speakers who objected to this Bill on Friday in saying that I have not the least objection to paying everybody a fair salary and a fair pension, because it is a cardinal principle of the Socialist faith that people should be well paid for any real services they render to the community. What I object to is the method that has been adopted here and the exclusion of the other people. I would like to say that it is rather an extraordinary thing that a Bill of this kind should be discussed to-night following the Debate to which we have just listened, because I am certain there is very much in what has been described as the traffic history of Ireland which contains a good many lessons for us to keep in mind in our treatment of India. We started India, as Mr. Montagu said, on the road to self-government, and I think it would be admitted that this sort of pin-pricking policy, in defiance of the expressed view of the Legislative Assembly, is not calculated to promote the spirit of goodwill that everyone desires in the relationship between the two countries. Further than that, I would like to point out that when the Indians desire to amend this Act, to make it more acceptable to them, they are continually told that it must be allowed to go on working until the date when an inquiry is to be held, and if that inquiry reports favourably, some amendment will take place. Considering that the Legislative Assembly has rejected the Lee Report it is very
bad that we should be passing a Bill to amend the Act over their heads, and at the same time tell them when they are demanding an extension of reforms, that those reforms cannot be considered until the proper date arrives. I consider that is a very great injustice. If hon. Members will look at the Bill they will see that Section I takes out Section 67A of the original Act and certain Sub-sections, and proposes to put in their place the words you will find in the new Bill. If you take Section 67A and Sub-section (3) of the said Section, which relates to proposals for the appropriation of money, you will find that it reads:
The proposals of the Governor-General in Council shall not be submitted to the Vote of the Legislative Assembly, nor shall they be open to discussion by either Chamber at the time the annual statement is under consideration unless the Governor-General otherwise so directs.''
Then the Bill sets out a number of things that the Legislative Assembly shall not deal with. What is now proposed is to add to the things which the Legislative Assembly shall not deal with, and they give a number of other eases. The reason for this is said to be that an Indian Judge or official may offend the local council or some members of the Legislative Assembly, and when the time comes to deal with his salary or pension they may pay him out by not giving him a rise and not dealing justly with him. If you trust the Indian people at all in the spending of their own money, you ought to trust them all the way. If it is said that a Britisher may sometimes do something which may aggravate an Indian and set his back up, you may want to penalise him and you want to defend your fellow-countrymen but he should be defended by money voted in this House, and you should not impose upon the Legislative Council and upon the revenue of India something which the Legislative Council would say should not be levied.
I think that is a situation which, as I said on Friday last, would not be tolerated in this country or in any country that considered itself self-governing. That is the whole kernel of this business. It seems to me that this is just one of those little insults levied, no doubt quite innocently, but whatever your motives are it is an insult to say to a Legislative Council, "We will not trust you to do justice to these people, but we
will take the power out of your hands altogether and give it to an authority that may override you and may compel you to do this kind of thing."
It has been said that this is a very small question, but these small questions cause a very great deal of friction between the Indians and ourselves, and between the Indians and the Civil Service in India. In conclusion. I would like to say that the whole business, or, rather, the whole attitude of mind towards India, ought to be put on a better footing. I cannot help thinking that the step which Mr. Montagu took a few years ago was a very big one, find as I want a very big measure of self-government for India I am still sensible enough to realise that what Mr. Montagu did, when he staked his whole future on the Bill, which is now an Act we are amending, was a tremendous thing. It marked a great big advance in our relations with India. The terrible thing to me is that, over and over again, sometimes by a big thing and sometimes by a small one, we seem to pull back from that position.
I should like to hear from the Undersecretary some argument why we should do this thing in the teeth of the opposition of the Legislative Assembly. If hon. Members would put themselves for a moment in the position of the Indians, then, small as this thing may be, it would loom large to them as an insult. I do not think the House ought to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I wish it could be withdrawn and some better arrangement made with the Indian people, or with the representatives of the Indian people. I have had to live through a period when it was not thought wise to treat ordinary working people to do justice to exactly the class of people who are being dealt with here. The same argument that is used now that the officer, or the Judge, or the civil servant, may do something to bring him in conflict with the Indians, and, therefore, he may be unjustly used, was always used about us in local affairs and in big national affairs such as we have to deal with here. Yet I venture to say that no one who knows the working of local government in this country will deny that the workers, wherever they have got control, have always behaved fairly and justly to the experts and others to whom they have had to pay very much more money than any of
those who voted it were earning. I cannot help feeling that the experience in regard to us here must be the same; one very seldom hears any of us objecting to paying properly for expert work and for services which we consider to be of special importance. I want to treat the Indians in the same manner. There is very little education in India. The great mass of the people are uneducated, and I do not deny that they have had very little experience in local government or in national government; but I am certain that, the more you trust people, the more you put it up to them to do the right thing, the better it is. I repeat that I cannot help thinking that the step which we are taking in this Bill is a very backward step, and I very much hope the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.

Sir FRANK NELSON: In view of the fact that some throe days have elapsed since this Debate was adjourned, I think the House will, perhaps, pardon me if I briefly recapitulate exactly what the Bill sets out to do. The Government of India Act, 1919, removes from the vote of the Legislatures then set up under its provisions the salaries and pensions of certain classes of Indian public officials, and this present Bill—which, after all, merely sets forth the recommendations of the Lee Commission—is designed to increase slightly the range of those officials whose salaries and pensions shall be removed from the vote of the Indian Legislatures. The Lee Commission has, perhaps, in the year that has elapsed since this Bill was drafted been rather lost sight of, and more especially its terms of reference, and I should like to remind the House what those terms of reference were.
In the first place, the Commission was to have regard to the necessity for maintaining a standard of administration in conformity with the responsibilities of the Crown for the Government of India. That is to say they were to make no recommendation which would in any way upset or conflict with those responsibilities. In the second place, the attention of the Lee Commission was invited to the declared policy of Parliament in respect of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration. In other words, they
were directed to explore the possibilities of further advances in the Indianisation of the public services. Lastly, they were directed to keep in view the experience now gained of the operation of the system of government established by the Government of India Act in respect of the superior Civil Services of India. That is to say, they were required to say whether the actual operation of the scheme of government established by the Act of 1919 had disclosed anomalies in the organisation and general conditions of the Services which ought to be adapted or removed.
I think the House ought to be quite clear that the Lee Commission was in no sense asked to amend or alter the present Constitution of India at all. They were not asked to do that in any sense, but to anyone who has studied their Report it will be perfectly obvious that uppermost in their minds throughout their deliberations was the possibility of a future alteration of the Constitution of India. A great deal of time has been devoted by the three hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Amendment to pointing out, if possible, that this step is a retrograde step.
Turning to the Amendment itself, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that one gratifying fact does emerge from all of the three speeches that have been delivered in support of the proposal that this Bill should be thrown out, and that is the great tribute to the tremendous services rendered by the Civil Servants of India, and a great tribute, I think, to their honesty of purpose, their hard work, and generally to the wonderful administrative, work which they have done and, I have no doubt, will continue to do. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), in the course of his criticism said—I hope he will correct me if I misquote him—that he believed it to be to a considerable extent true that the Indian Civil Service, or the Government of India, is a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country. I think I have quoted him fairly correctly. I deprecate with all the force at my command any such statement, and I think I cannot do better, in endeavouring to refute this state of mind, than by quoting to the hon. Member the words of Sir Alexander Muddiman, who, in the Debate
in the Indian Legislative Assembly at Simla, which has already been alluded to, used the following words:
I have often discussed this question with Indian friends, and I hope I have many Indian friends, and I cannot help feeling that in the backs of their minds there has always been a feeling that Englishmen in this country desire to keep up English recruitment for selfish reasons— they wish to keep their jobs for their children"—

Miss WILKINSON: Hear, hear!

Sir F. NELSON: The hon. Member says "Hear, hear," but will she let me finish? Sir Alexander Muddiman went on:
They have at the back of their minds some reservation of that sort. Now, I ask you, Sir. Forty-five British recruits is the present quota necessitated by the Civil Services of India. Is that a fact that is going to affect a country like ours, or race like ours? Forty-five recruits! There are many big commercial undertakings which require nearly that number of recruits.
The present number in the All-India Services is, roughly, about 3,000. I ask the hon. Member for Mile End does he seriously think that a recruitment of 45 members a year is going, to use his own words, to prove a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country? I do not think so for one moment, The hon. Member for Mile End, as well as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), has made a considerable point of the fact that the obligations in respect of Indian civil servants ought to be paid for by this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: No. My point was that I understand this Bill to be one to safeguard certain people who may come under the ban of the Council or of the Legislative Assembly, and I say that, if you want to take away from the Legislative Assembly or the Council the power to deal with the officials whose salaries they pay, you ought to find the money, and not make them find it.

Sir F. NELSON: May I put it in this way? If I understand the hon. Member correctly, he states that the question of the right of Parliament to control the expenditure necessary to keep the Indian Civil Service up to its present pitch should not devolve upon the Government of India, but upon the Home Exchequer.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, if you do not let them control it.

Sir F. NELSON: It is a very curious thing that in the Legislative Assembly, when the Motion was put forward by the Indian Government that the findings of the Lee Commission should be sanctioned —it was, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley perfectly correctly states, thrown out—that Motion was debated for, I think, five days, and a tremendous amount of oratory was expended upon it; but, although I have read nearly all of that this morning, I am unable to find in the whole of that Debate—and I will make a present of it to the hon. Member —any mention whatsoever of any grievance on the part of Indian politicians in regard to this particular point which he raises, that if we control certain services in India the cost should fall upon the English Exchequer. I am unable to find any expression whatever, in the whole of that Debate, of any such grievance in the minds of Indian politicians.

Mr. LANSBURY: They threw it out.

Sir F. NELSON: They threw it out, but surely if there is any real grievance on the lines the hon. Member suggests we might very well leave it to the very competent authority of these Indian politicians to give expression to it themselves. I do not really think it is part of his very over worked part in this Parliament to endeavour to jump into the breach.
The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) also made a speech in support of the Amendment, distinguished alike for its commendable brevity and at the same time for one of the most remarkable statements I have ever read in regard to India. I am sorry he is not in his place. I informed him that I was going to endeavour to show that one of the statements he made bears but a dim resemblance to the truth. He informed me, however, that he has an engagement elsewhere. He said:
The Government of India have no scruple in employing a few million human beings on Government railways, in the police, in the Army, as clerks and as teachers, at the wretched wage of £2 a month, the excuse being that an Indian public servant does not require much money.
I put it to this House that the first claim on those revenues is from those
wretched people who are now, in 1925, paid literally £2 a month, when the cost of living in India is declared by the Government themselves to be £4."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December,. 1925; col. 2809, Vol. 188.]
In the Accounts and Papers 1924–25. Volume 1, page 631, among other things there is evidence to show that in certain industries and in certain parts of India a substantial margin now exists between wages and the cost of living, and I am in a position to assure the hon. Member, among other things, that the average wage—I am talking mainly of Bombay at the moment—for men in the cotton mills there has exactly doubled between 1924 and 1923. The average wage for men in 1923 was 36 rupees, which really is about £3 and not £2. Further I have made it my business to inquire this morning from official sources and I am informed that no figures have been published by the Government of India which in any way support those given by the hon. Member on 4th December as to the monthly cost of living (namely, £4 per month), nor are any figures available which would render such a statement possible. I only wish he was in his sent to endeavour to explain exactly what he means by "an army of clerks and teachers at a wretched wage of £2 a month," for I have now in my own firm in Bombay office messengers who are getting more than £2 a month. I have drivers of motor cars who are getting as much as £5 a month, and the average clerk's wage in Bombay, in a commercial office, I should think starts at about £6 to £7 a month, and, so far as I know, there is possibly some difference, but very little, between the rates at which the ordinary Government clerk is paid and that of a commercial clerk.
The hon. Member also alluded to the Army. I do not think one can go into that at length because the pay of an Army Sepoy carries with it food, clothing and housing. But taking the general aspect of the Bill, which I sincerely hope we shall pass, the difficulties of the Indian civil servant can hardly be appreciated by anyone who has not had personal contact and knowledge of them. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley alluded to the difficulties of an Indian Judge, who might run up against the Indian local council. There is a substratum of truth
in what he put forward. If you take the case of a civil servant administering a tract of country, say, as big as possibly two or three English counties put together, and assuming that he is ordered by the policy of the Assembly, or one of the local legislative councils, to put into force a certain kind of administration which may run counter to the interests of a very influential section of the Indians in that district, it surely must be obvious to anyone that his position is exceedingly difficult. He is merely carrying out the orders given him, the policy of which is decided by the Indian Legislatures. He puts into force this administration, which may quite conceivably run counter to the interests of really influential Indian magnates and Indian interests. Sooner or later it is also conceivable that if he continues to push forward this administration he may find himself in exceedingly bad odour, either in the local council or the Legislative Assembly, and surely when these people, who are bearing the heat and burden of the day, who have done such wonderful work, as is admitted by all Members above the gangway, ask that their pensions and their salaries shall be in the last resort under the jurisdiction of this House, for that is what it amounts to, I really cannot see why there should be any rooted opposition to it. If we are to reach that goal to which I think all parties in the House really desire to reach, it wilt be mainly because of the past work done by the Civil Service and the public services of India, and also I think their future work will have a bearing upon that goal which we all desire to reach of bringing understanding as between the Indian nation and ourselves which will. I hope hasten the day, which we are all sincerely anxious shall come as soon as it is humanly possible, when we can extend full Dominion self-government to India.

Mr. W. BAKER: The conclusion to be drawn from the speech that has just been delivered is that Indian Home Rule must be accelerated as much as possible. I want to associate myself with the speeches that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I believe that the first-named Member accurately stated the position when he said that under this Bill and
under the system that exists at present the obligation to maintain these people who are now carrying out the administration of India is not thrown upon those in this country who benefit from the government of India, but upon the people of India themselves. Having associated myself with my friends in that way, I want to urge another objection to this Bill, namely, that, as I understand it, it is designed to benefit materially certain members of the higher Indian Civil Service, while it fails in any way to confer similar advantages upon men of a more lowly status who, being of European birth, should be entitled to somewhat equal treatment.
The men on whose behalf I speak tonight are employed in the Indian subordinate services, and are recruited for service with the Army Department of India. I gather that these men are organised in an organisation known as the Foremen's Association of India, In addition to complaining that they are not included within the recommendations of the Lee Commission, nor within the terms of this Bill, they are very dissatisfied with their general conditions of employment, and that their representations to the Indian authorities do not reach the Secretary of State in London with that speed which one would hope for, having regard to the statements which we have heard in this House. I am assured that a memorial was presented to the Indian authorities—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Is the hon. Member aware that these men are not covered in any sense by this Bill?

Mr. BAKER: That is the point which I am submitting to the House as an objection to the Bill, that it deals with the more highly placed officials in India while it fails to deal with the men at the other end of the scale. The memorial which these men submitted to the Indian authorities in July, 1924, was, I understand, not forwarded to the Secretary of State by the middle of February, 1925. If the Indian authorities were unable to deal with that memorial, such delay would appear to be unjustified. This organisation is affiliated to the Civil Service Confederation, a well-known organisation in this country, and the Civil Service Confederation give me to understand that
they have endeavoured to make representations to the Secretary of State at the India Office, but that they have not been successful in that endeavour. I hope that the Noble Lord will be able to-night to give an undertaking that he will look into the conditions of service so far as these men are concerned, and that he will endeavour to provide machinery whereby their reasonable representations may be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State.
I am given to understand that these men are recruited for service in India at a comparatively late period in life, for a fixed term of years, and that one of their biggest difficulties is that, with family responsibilities, their salaries are not such as will permit them to give an adequate education to their children in India. They ask that special attention shall be directed to that point, because they feel that, being of European origin, they are entitled to give their children an education up to the secondary standard in this country.
I gather that whilst, as far as the higher sections of the service are concerned, provision is made for members of the Civil Service and their families to visit their homeland during their period of service, these men are not fortunate enough in having any such provision. The appeal I want to make is that every man of European origin in India who is employed in the Civil Service or in any way connected with that service shall be considered as being entitled to the benefits which are being granted to the higher civil servants.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the privileges of civil servants who are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. I think the hon. Member is in order in suggesting that those other servants should be brought under the scope of the Bill, but I do not think he can go into the general question of the service.

Mr. BAKER: I have succeeded in submitting the point which I had in my mind. I have concluded the appeal which I wanted to make, and I regret that that appeal was not strictly in order. I trust that, in reply, the Noble Lord will be able to make some concession in regard to this matter.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Those of us on this side of the House who take a special interest in India cannot but be grateful to the- hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and his friends for the interest which they take in Indian affairs. Perhaps they will allow me to say that in the remarks which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley made to-night he appears to be under some slight misunderstanding as regards the objects and the scope of this Bill. The question of what contributions should be made by Great Britain to India or by India to Great Britain, or what amount of revenue of India should pass through British hands for administration, is one of very great interest, and one which, I feel confident, we could discuss for a considerable number of days before we convinced each other or arrived at a solution on very debatable points. That has nothing whatever to do with the discussion on this Bill to-night.
The position which hon. Members opposite take up is quite clear. They say that men who are doing good work should get good pay. There is no point of quarrel with them when they suggest that the question of the pay of the Civil Service should be reconsidered. It is another question as to whether, the pay being what it is, that pay should be administered by the Indian Legislative Assembly or be under the control of the Secretary of State for India. There is nothing new in the suggestions in this Bill. The appointments of these servants are made by the Secretary of State, and the whole object of the Bill is to ensure that the Secretary of State in making the appointments should also retain the control of those servants. I would point out to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and his friends that that matter has been put very clearly by no less a person than the representative of the Labour party in another place. The words which he used could not be improved upon. He said:
The objects of the Bill are to secure that, no matter what constitutional change may hereafter take place, when a public servant has been appointed by the Secretary of State, acting on behalf of His Majesty, the direct contract entered into with him shall be safeguarded and observed.
If that contract is entered into with him by the Secretary of State, then the object of this Bill is to ensure that such servant
shall have the right of appeal to the person who appointed him.
I do not want to go into the conditions which led up to the Reform Act of 1919, or in any way to anticipate what may happen when a further Commission is appointed to consider the matter in 1929, or in any other year. It is within the knowledge of the House that a certain section of residents of India, European residents principally, while in no way ignoring the fact that the time had come for a considerable advance, thought that perhaps some of these reforms were coming too quickly and perhaps, at that time, went too far. At any rate, it is not unnatural that a class of educated men who have been appointed to certain posts in the Civil Service of India would not desire, however much goodwill may exist between different sections of the community, that their future should in any way pass under the control of those who perhaps, owing to different circumstances and different surroundings, have a different outlook in life and different ideals, both of service and of life in general. The conditions would be quite different if we were dealing with men admitted on a new basis by the Indian Legislative Assembly or its officers. That would be a new contract, and there would be no grievance on the part of men appointed under those conditions if their positions were altered or they were entirely under the control of the Legislative Assembly.
These appointments are made by the Secretary of State, and all that is asked is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. It is not a matter only of finance: it goes much deeper than that. There are, of course, financial considerations, which are important, but the question is not only financial. When you have a service of the highest standard and with a wonderful history, the men should not be worried either by financial considerations or by questions of security of tenure. The Lee Commission Report was a compromise. It set out to secure to those who were in any difficulty or fear as to their future, on the one side security of tenure, and at the same time to try to convince as far as possible the people in India of the intention and desire of the British people to carry out, in the letter and in the spirit, the Act which they had set their hands to in 1919. That Report was unanimous.
This is not a question of European against Indian at all. The Bill with which we are dealing affects members of the Service, whether European or Indian. It is merely a question of securing for those appointed by the Secretary of State that they shall remain under his jurisdiction. There is, however, one point with which it is necessary to deal shortly. The last speaker referred to certain of the subordinate services which are not within the scope of the Bill. It is quite clear, whatever the rights or the wrongs of the case that he brought forward so eloquently, that they do not come within the scope of the Bill. There is a class of members of the Service in India, however, who probably come within the scope of the Bill, in regard to whom I want to make an appeal to the Undersecretary. When the Bill of 1919 was passed, there was a complete split-up of what were then the non-covenanted services. They were split up into three. First, you had the provincial services, which were liable to be transferred from one Presidency to another. They are now called the All-India Services. Then there were the services under the control of the Central Government, now called the Central Services. Thirdly, there were the services of men whose duty all lay within one Province. Now they are called the Inferior Provincial Services.
This Bill undoubtedly applies to the first and second categories, but it is not clear that it applies to the third category. It is very desirable that we 9.0 P.M. should not leave these men with any grievance at all. I understand from the Debate in another place that there is a little difference of opinion technically as to whether these men come under this Bill or not, and there is also the difficulty that the Secretary of State referred to when he said it was not clear how many of the men would come under the Bill. It is clear to my mind that the services I have referred to do not include the subordinate services, which are recruited separately, generally by heads of Departments in India. The men to whom I refer were recruited from this country, British officers of non-Asiatic domicile, recruited for special work in India, and for services in which a minimum number of British officers has been considered essential. These men have done extraordinarily good work.
There are said to be under 200 of them. They are getting towards the end of their time in India, and they will be seriously affected if the terms of the Lee Commission Report and of this Bill do not come to their aid and give them the benefits which the Report would give to other classes. It is a very technical subject, and difficult to deal with in a speech of this kind. The matter might be easily rectified by putting in an Amendment to have these men reappointed by the Secretary of State.
I am not pressing the matter to-night, nor do I in any way desire to delay the Bill. On all sides there is full appreciation of the fact that the Bill is overdue and that it would have a very bad effect in India to delay the Bill. But I do ask the Under-Secretary to look carefully into the case of these men, to see to what extent the Bill affects them, and, if it does not affect them, to see whether any Amendment can be made to bring them within the scope of the Bill. It is necessary and desirable that the recruiting of these men should be stimulated. In answers to questions recently, the Undersecretary of State said clearly how essential it was that our recruiting for the Civil Service should be improved. That recruiting depends largely upon the passage of a Bill of this kind. Equally it is essential that the prospects of men in the provincial services should be secured. I suggest that, just as this Bill as it stands is of the greatest importance to secure the future of the Civil Service in India, so it is equally important that it should embrace those who are in the provincial services. I do not think anyone who knows the condition of India and who agrees that India is passing through a difficult time, in which both she and Great Britain are learning what is the best course for the future, will deny that at this time above all others it is essential that we should recruit the best men for these great services. We want men who will live up to the wonderful traditions of the past and who will feel that in undertaking public service in India, they are taking up a life work and following in the footsteps of those who have made the Indian Civil Service probably the finest service in the Empire. These services, whether Indian or European, should be inspired by the same high ideals as in the past, and be free from political influence. These
men are training the Indians now, and they should train them with a view to the day when real democratic government will be possible in India the day— to which, perhaps, hon. Members opposite are specially looking forward, when Indians will entirely control their own affairs, the day towards which all our energies are directed when India will be ready for Dominion status.

Mr. SNELL: It is rightly assumed that the general principle of willingness to pay adequately for services rendered to the Empire, is believed in by every section of the House. There is no dispute on that point as between hon. Members in favour of the Bill and those who are opposed to it. I had the privilege of being on the Joint Standing Committee of the two Houses when this matter was fully and carefully discussed, and I think I showed in those discussions that I had no hostility to the adequate payment of these men. It is of the utmost importance to the Indian people that the Indian Civil Service should be a contented, a happy and an efficient service. Its happiness and efficiency depends not only on the amount paid to its members, but on the security of that payment and the general conditions. I think it is common ground between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill that any unfavourable conditions in the service will react unfavourably on the Indian people. On the wider question there is considerable room for doubt as to the wisdom of this particular Measure presented in this particular way. The Title of the Bill expressly states that it is for the purpose of
exempting proposals for expenditure upon certain salaries, pensions, and other payments from submission to Indian Legislatures.
That phrase is extremely unfortunate. It conveys to India a belief in the minds of the promoters of this Bill that the Indian people are unwilling and could not be trusted to pay adequately those engaged in Indian administration. Whatever may be said of the political attitude of the Indian people to this country, their generosity and sense of justice ought not to be challenged. A further difficulty is that this Bill places a. charge upon a people who are inadequately represented in the legislatures
of India and as this Measure has been before those legislatures and has been rejected by them, it cannot be assumed that the Indian people welcome the Bill in its present form. We wish, in whatever we do, to draw the Indian people and ourselves closer together, and we should think, not once but twice and thrice, before we take any step which will create new suspicions in their minds. What will inevitably occur to the Indian people in this connection will be that the governing Act concerning the Indian people themselves cannot be reconsidered until 1929, but the needs of these servants of ours can be considered at any time, and for their purpose the Act can be broken through and their case regarded as urgent. In the presentation of the Bill the Government should have considered providing some sort of accommodation in that matter. I do not wish to hold up a decision. This Bill will doubtless pass, but it will go from this House to the Indian people with the suggestion that they are not trusted to do the right thing by these services, and so far as I have any claim to do so, I regret that reflection.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I recognise the moderation of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down and, as his colleague on the Joint Committee to which he referred, I recognise the fact that it is not the first time he has shown moderation and care in his judgments on this question. I may be able to remove from his mind some of the suspicions which he seems to entertain as to certain aspects of this Measure. I think he fears, and fears unnecessarily, that it will provoke suspicion, doubt, difficulty and perhaps jealousy among our Indian fellow subjects. I suppose that on a question of this sort we must have all sorts of views put forward, and that a great Imperial question of the first importance to the Empire cannot be discussed without the intrusion of suspicions of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr). Those suspicions are doubtless becoming, to the hon. Member's own genial personality, and I presume that he was persuading the House to accept his view by suggesting that this service provides a system of outdoor relief to the upper middle classes of this country. I wonder would the hon. Member make that statement if he knew, as I know, the
men among my own constituents who compose about one-third, of the Indian Civil Service. Does he think it is a fair description of these men who have been trained for this service from their early years, who have passed difficult examinations and who spend the best part of their lives working under hard conditions. I wonder if the hon. Member would go among the valleys and mountains and the villages of Scotland from which most of the recruits for the Indian Civil Service come and suggest that these men are receiving outdoor relief as members of the upper and wealthier classes. The whole thing is as contemptible as it is worthless to the making up of our minds on the question.
I am not looking at the interests of the Civil Service when I consider this question. The interests of a. Service, of the members of that Service, of this man or that man, are a mere trifle compared with what is involved in really doing your duty, as this House is asked to do, by your servants in carrying out a great Imperial task. It is not the interests of the Civil Servant that are here concerned, it is the interests of the 300,000,000 natives in India. That is what is at stake. I am in contact weekly, and have been for years past, with those who are engaged in Indian administration. I am besought by them week after week to do what I can as a representative up the Scottish Universities to keep up the supply from those Scottish Universities that have done in the past so great a work for India. I have a responsibility to my constituents. I cannot say to them, "Go in for this," unless they have some security, not in the matter of payment of money of this or that amount, but the security that gives some chance that they may not be cast to the wolves. . That is really a thing that one must take into account before one gives advice. I have done it, and I have not hesitated to give that advice, because I know from those who are now administering in India how essential for the advantage of India it is that we should have carried on this great stream of worthy recruits for her Service.
There is one who is very close to me, and who has a very important post to discharge in India. He writes to me that he is constantly asked by the native administrators in the provincial Govern-
ment for which he is partly responsible: "For Heaven's sake, give us some Englishmen. We cannot decide between the fundamental differences of the Mohammedans and the Indians fairly unless at the beginning you give us an impartial administrator such as we find in the English officials." Over and over again he has been obliged to write to these native administrators and say that he has no British officer available. We are making no accusation against our Indian fellow citizens when we point out the fundamental fact that they are divided into two almost unbridgeable compartments. A gulf lies between them. They suspect one another. I remember walking with an Indian administrator in a remote station in India some years ago, and he told me what a native had said. My friend said to him: "In the days of your grandchildren and mine, shall we still be here?" The native pointed to the water butts bearing the two labels" For Indian gentlemen," "For Mohammedan gentlemen," and said: " As long as these two inscriptions are there, we cannot do without you."
We have seen in the Punjab the desperate difficulty of the Sikh dissensions, where there was dire feud between different sections of the natives. It has now been settled. I had a letter the other day from one concerned, in which he said, "For five years this has been the nightmare of my life, and I think we have now got it settled." You cannot advance step by step, as we desire to advance, to the full independence of India without the help of English administrators. We have put our hand to the plough, and we are not going to turn back. I am not one of those who would wipe out the advances we have made; but if you are to achieve full success, you must in the intermediate period have the help of those unbiased and independent representatives of our own nation who can give great help and play a magnificent r61e in smoothing the difficulties between sections of the natives. You will not do that if you allow constant attacks, if you allow uncertainty and almost despair to grow up. You felt that in order to help forward the work on which you were engaged, the first step was to give some stability to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he was Prime
Minister, called the "iron frame of administration." To have an iron frame in your administration does not mean a tyrannical thing, but merely some fixity, some impartiality, some continuity. You felt that in order to do this you must send out this Commission, as you did under Lord Lee of Fareham. You now have their unanimous Report, the Report of a Commission drawn from all political parties in this country and from the natives of India as well, and this House is asked to implement the undertaking of that Commission and to do its duty to a Service upon whose continued existence for a certain period of years the welfare of India depends.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The prophet Jeremiah denouncing the sins of Jerusalem was as nothing compared with the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) denouncing the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) for his quotation—not his own statement—that the Civil Service in India was for the outdoor relief of the upper classes of this country. Really, if that absurd statement has any foundation in fact, it must be derived from some of the Debates in this House on India.

Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Seurr) used these words himself and adopted them as his own.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He used them as a quotation. I have the words here. If it is said about the Indian Civil Service, it is due to the Debates we have had in this House on this question.

Sir H. CRAIK: He adhered to that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Kidderminster in his difficulty in explaining what he wants because I have spent many weary hours trying to make out what, this Bill means. I ask the Prime Minister to have one casual cursory glance at this astonishing Bill introduced on Friday afternoon last. No man in his senses reading this Bill can make out what one word of it means. You cannot make out what it means by referring to the documents. Clause 1 runs
Sections sixty-seven A and seventy-two D of the Government of India Act shall ….
Then it goes on to the minor alterations of these mysterious Sections. You turn
up the Government of India Act, 1919, and find it has only 42 Sections. You are referred to the parent Act of 1915 as amended in 1916, and you find it has Sections running as far as 72, but there are no "A's" or "D's " attached to them. Unless you are an India Office official or an official of the Government of India, you must be unable to make out what the Bill means. Surely it was desirable that the Noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, should give an adequate explanation of what the Bill was about. We could not find out from the Bill what it was. The Noble Lord made a short speech of 10 minutes and as far as I can make out there were two points in the Bill to which he referred, and I presume these two points are all that are included in the Bill. The two points were, firstly, that whereas the 1919 Act made it quite certain that the established services in India should have security of pay and tenure independent of the Indian Legislature, there appeared to be some doubt as to weather the Legislature had not some control over allowances. Apparently under the 1919 Act the Assembly as well as the Governor-General in Council may have had some control over the allowances to civil servants home on leave. The second point was that there were certain other small classes whom this Bill withdrew from the control of the Legislature and of the Minister and put in similar secured positions enjoyed by established civil servants. He did not tell us either the amount of expenditure by India nor did he tell us the number of the newly privileged class who are to be independent of Indian control in this way, nor, most serious of all, did he tell us whether those two samples he gave of what the Bill meant were exhaustive and included all that is in the Measure.
Before we vote on this Bill we should have, not merely in the interest of this House, but of the Indian people, a clear statement as to exactly what this Bill involves. It will not do to refer us, as the Noble Lord did, to debates in another place. We are entitled in this House to have full and adequate explanation of any Bill varying the Government of India Act, 1919. The first thing I want to make clear to the House in regard to this Bill is that the alterations that are being made are thoroughly bad in
principle. We are altering the Government of India Act, which we said could not be altered for 10 years and without a Royal Commission inquiry into alterations. We are altering it in an undemocratic direction. It is not merely a question of whether people's salaries should be secured or whether they are adequate. The alteration is that we are withdrawing the hold over those civil servants from the Indian Legislature and transferring it to the Secretary of State. No hon. Member who has read the evidence given before the Muddiman Commission by the various Indian. Ministers could fail to observe that the principal complaint of all the Indian Ministers is the absence of control over their civil servants and of constant friction owing to the independent regime of the Civil Service and the Ministry. That has been the origin of nine-tenths of the dissatisfaction. Here in this Bill we subtract from the control of the Legislature and the Ministers a little bit more of their power and their control over those people who ought to be their own servants.
We certainly want to know if the Indian people approve of this change which is proposed to be made by this amending Act. We know that they rejected the Lea Report. We on these benches ought to be very careful indeed how we whittle down the small amount of democratic control there is in the Civil (Service at present; how we indicate to the Indian people that, when we do make changes in the Government of India Act, they are changes in the direction of increasing the power of the steel frame whereas we know the urgent necessity there is for gradual development of democratic principles in India. If instead of developing that democratic education, we withdraw the control over the Civil Service from the legislatures, we are going in the wrong direction and making it more difficult to carry out what they want. Could we not possibly leave changes such as this till the Royal Commission is appointed? Before 1929 we must have a Royal Commission into the working of this Act, a Royal Commission which will be bound to frame the next step forward in Indian development. It may be that when that Royal Commission reports they may make representations such as these, and any recommendations they make on
these lines are bound to be infinitely more palatable to the people of India if they are combined with developments in a democratic direction in other ways.
I do submit to the House that, in view of the extremely critical state of mind of the Indian people at the present moment, in view of the fact that now at last the Swarajist party seems to be adopting the sensible course of co-operating in the development of democratic institutions, in view of the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai has been elected for Lahore, and gone on to the Assembly in order to carry out a policy of constructive co-operation, this is the worst possible moment to put another pin prick into the Indian people, to toll them we are altering the Act of 1919, and in an undemocratic direction, altering it in the interests of the Civil Service, that we are not making the alterations which the Minority Report of the Muddiman Committee recommended, and we are not making any compensating concessions in any other direction, but are merely looking to the interests of the established Service.
I think we might possibly have postponed this, too, for one other reason. One of the principal grievances of the Indian Civil Service has been that the cost of living has risen and the rupee has been more or less depressed. At the present moment it is well known that the rupee is being kept to 1s. 6¼d. A Cora-mission has been appointed to consider the currency question, and to decide what the rupee should be fixed at, or whether it should be fixed at all. It will go to a higher figure than it stands at to-day, in all probability: but as the rupee goes up so the financial position of everybody in the Civil Service improves. If it is fixed at 1s. 9d., it means that everybody's salary in India is automatically increased by about 15 per cent., and therefore the position of the Indian Civil Service will enormously improve. When they remit their pay to this country, in order to educate their children or pay their holiday expenses, it is going to make the position of the Indian civilian enormously better, and enable him to have the same good time that he had in 1920. I do submit that, until this Commission has reported, and has indicated to us exactly what the financial position of the Indian civilian is going to be, we
might very well postpone this question of withdrawing from the Indian people any control over the salaries of these various Services.
There is a final word I would like to say on this Bill. When we are dealing with the salaries and the security of the salaries for the higher ranks of the Indian Civil Service, I think we ought, at the same time, to cast a, passing glance at the salaries paid to the lower branches of the service. The whole of the postal service is, of course, paid by the Government. The pay is exceptionally low. The postman's wage even in Bombay is not up to the standard of the mill-worker. When in Calcutta, the most un popular thing I did—and I did a great many unpopular things in India—was to pay my bearer 60 rupees, when, apparently, the ordinary bearer pay was 30 rupees a month, and I do not suppose the wages have gone up since then. The whole standard of wages in the Civil Service in India is appalling for the lower paid. Teachers, postal workers, railway workers are all getting a standard of wage which would horrify not only any trade union secretary, but any hon. Member of this House if he came to work it out in pound?, shillings and pence at its purchasing power in this country. That being so, I think we may ask the Noble Lord whether it will not be possible, now we are making this change in the Government of India Act, to appoint a Commission to go into the question of the wages of these State workers in India, so that we may have all the facts and figures before us, and so that the conscience of India may apply itself to a problem which shows no sign of improvement, and which certainly demands the careful attention of the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. PILCHER: I am aware that this House is waiting rather eagerly to hear my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary. I do not propose to detain the House more than a very few moments, but I can plead that I am perhaps the only Member in this House who was called as a witness before the Lee Commission, whose recommendations this Bill seeks to implement. I have the interests of the services in India very closely at heart, not because I regard them in their capacity as a close corporation or a par-
ticular class. I have their interest at heart because I feel they are absolutely essential to the future prosperous development of India, and I would like to detain the House for a few minutes if I may to consider some of the points that have been raised during the Debate. As I sit here and listen to hon. Members and right hon. Members on the Labour benches, who really have the interests of India at heart, the thing that strikes me more and more every time I hear them talk is the extraordinary lack of exact knowledge which they bring to bear on this extremely difficult problem. I recognise their goodness of heart and their goodness of intention, but it is pathetic to see how far they do really stray from reality.
I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It seems to me the gravamen of his criticism on this Bill is that it proposes an alteration in the existing constitution of India in an undemocratic direction. The Secretary of State is accused of desiring to whittle down the amount of control which was conceded to the Indian Parliament in 1919. This Measure is alluded to as a "pinprick." We heard a number of expressions of that kind used by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. It seems to me the right hon. and gallant Member simply has not in any way followed the phase of Indian development which led up to the introduction of this Measure It is said this Measure is due to the tact that we are trying to "limit the democratic control of these legislatures in India, when we are actually engaged in a further extension of that democratic control several years before, according to the Statute of 1910, it became due. May I remind, hon. Members that an essential part of the Lee Commission's recommendation was that the recruitment of two or three of the great Indian Services should be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel to the Ministers who were in these areas, and responsible for them. The root proposal of the Lee Commission was to give the recruitment of the Education Department, the Agricultural Department, and the Forestry Department in several of the provinces to the Ministers responsible to the local legislature. That is the prime necessity to meet which
this Bill has been put forward. It is to meet the case of a number of those public servants in India who Have hitherto relied on the protection of the Secretary of State, and of the Government of India, and are now going to be handed over to the Ministers to take their part in the new provincial services controlling the provinces. It has been necessary to safeguard the position of Englishmen who are present are temporaily in those jobs, but ultimately will be replaced by Indians. That is one of the purposes of the Bill.
The second essential purpose—and I should like here to refer to the right hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that we might postpone this) Bill—the second reason that the Bill has been undertaken has been just precisely those disturbing economic developments in India to which he has referred. For several years we had all these major services in India in a condition of economic stress and difficulty. It is impossible adequately to describe to hon. Members the state of things. It would be necessary for hon. Members to see how these public servants were living, the stress to which their wives were put, and the difficulties they encountered in educating their children and sending them home periodically. One could not understand unless you have seen them contending against these difficulties under Indian conditions. And it is quite impossible to explain how urgent this Bill is from the point of view of actual facts. It is necessary, in view of these various considerations, that this Bill should be passed almost immediately if only to indemnify the Government of India and the Secretary of State for the measures which they took 18 months ago to meet the perfectly intolerable conditions under which these public servants lived.
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will cast his memory back to 1920 at the time when he was in India, he will remember probably the enormous cost of the passage to and from India. It became essential for the families of the public servants in India who had to return to England as often as necessary to give them some sort of concession, to cover something like a 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. increase in the cost of the passages to and from England since the War. A number of these concessions had
to be made. It now becomes necessary to implement or to cover them by legislation. That is the second major object of the Bill.
It also became necessary to re-define the term "salaries and pensions." Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform they were guaranteed from attacks by the Legislatures. There is no new principle at all introduced into this Bill, but it has become necessary to re-define those terms, because some Legislatures actually made attacks on the allowances for travelling and other purposes, and it was desirable that these allowances should be incorporated in these terms. These are the three essential purposes of the Bill.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that there is no substance whatever in the suggestion that this Bill is in any way undemocratic or departs from the principle laid down in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform scheme. One of the reasons for that charge being brought forward is obviously that the Imperial Legislative Assembly declared against the Bill. It has been suggested that the proposals were undemocratic and were not representative of the people of India. I should like to point out that the actual vote at the last General Election for the Indian Assembly was 343,000 voters out of a population throughout British India of 240,000,000. I would ask the House in what real sense can that vote be said to be democratic, and by what right did the Assembly denounce this Bill?

Mr. LANSBURY: How does that effect the matter?

Mr. PILCHER: My point is that they only represent some 343,000 in an enormous population, as large as the population of the whole of Europe without Russia.

Mr. LANSBURY: We do not represent them!

Mr. PILCHER: Remarks put forward by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Snell) suggest that the restrictions imposed on legislative action in India are calculated to arouse suspicion and misunderstanding there. May I point out that the restrictions imposed are the same in kind as those in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform Act. They do not
reflect in the least upon the generosity of the Indian people. They are simply a safeguard against the inexperience of the new legislatures. Powers to reserve some sort of control were necessary, and one of them had reference to the welfare of the public servants on which the future progress of India very much depends.
I should like to make a very special appeal to the Labour Benches above the Gangway not to press the Amendment which they have on the Paper to defer the Second Heading of the Bill. A speedy passage of this Bill is urgent. It is urgent in the interests of the Services, but still more urgent, I am perfectly convinced, in the interests of the people of India. The continual presence of the Services is necessary, not for themselves, not for the people of the class from which they are drawn. Might I remind the House from what class these servants are actually drawn. They are drawn from the most brilliant classes in all our Universities. They are not men who need to go abroad. They are the cream of the Universities. They could have got honourable appointments very easily in almost any country in the world. It is not for them that this matter is pressed; it is for the people of India who need the services of the English public servants there. May I remind hon. Members that during the period of grave disorder which followed the enactment of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms we had constant appeals from various classes of the Indian community for the assistance of just these men whose presence in India has been criticised to-night. There were very serious riots on more than one occasion. The gaols were full of people charged with seditious behaviour and other serious crimes, and special requests were made to let them have a British Judge to try these cases. We had those sort of appeals coming in constantly, and those who know the country, who know the districts, and who know the masses, know perfectly well that, despite anything the Assembly may say to the contrary, the work of these men is most deeply appreciated by the ryots, the agricultural cultivators, who really make up the mass of the population.
There is just one other point I would like to make, which is, that among the masses in India there still is an immense
class of illiterates. As I listen to these Debates I sometimes, wonder whether people here realise that only V per cent. of the whole population of the country are literate in any language at all. The vast majority are quite incapable of reading the newspapers, and there is no newspaper in the country which has a circulation of 50,000. They cannot study these questions, or demand a response from the Members who represent them, or appear to represent them, in the Assembly or in Council. They are in a very special sense still a charge and a trust of this House. I do appeal to this House, and particularly to Members on the Labour Benches, to give us the Second Heading of this Bill which is being asked for to-day and assist Us enactment before the House rises for Christmas.

Earl WINTERTON: By leave of the House, and in response to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, I rise to say a few words, and at the same time to request the House, if they will do so, now to come to a decision on this Bill. In the first place it is obvious to me, from what occurred as the result of my speech on Friday last, that the demand which is said in some quarters to exist in the House for speeches of not more than 10 minutes' duration is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. I read in the newspapers in the early part of last week that there was a demand that speeches on all matters other than those of first-rate importance should not exceed 10 minutes, and I can say with all sincerity that it was in deference to that demand that I made a speech of exactly 9½ minutes' duration; and I thought I had succeeded, in that time, in explaining all the provisions of a Bill which is not a first-class Measure although it deals with an important matter. However, I did not succeed in explaining it satisfactorily to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Let me say one thing in reference to his speech. I do not make any complaint of the tone of his speech, or of any speeches from the benches opposite, though I think those hon. Members are mistaken in their attitude to the Bill. But I was rather surprised to find such opposition to the
Bill in view of the fact that, as I understood from a careful perusal of his speech, the Noble Lord who represents his party on Indian affairs in another place, and who was formerly Secretary of State for India, gave his blessing to the Bill and was prepared to support it, at any rate, taking no steps to divide against it. The criticisms which have been directed against the Bill are summed up in the statement made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He asked, "What should we say in this House if the power of controlling our own money were taken away from us?" I think the position can best be explained by a reference to the original Act and the amendments which this Bill proposes to make in that Act. It will show that we are, in effect, doing nothing of the sort. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman had difficulty in finding a copy of the Act in question. The Government of India Act (As amended up to 1st August, 1924) can, I am sure, be found in the Library and in the Lobbies of this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to say that there was only one copy in the Library, and that I tried to buy one at Abingdon Street this morning, and could not do so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is not in the lobbies.

10.0 P.M.

Earl WINTERTON: I am obliged to hon. Members for calling my attention to this. I do not know if it is a matter that rests with my Department, or whether it is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House, but I will take the matter up and inquire into it. I shall be glad to provide hon. Members who desire it with copies of the Act, up to a reasonable number. What are the relevant words of the Act in question? Under Section 67A, in Sub-section (3) are these words:
The proposals of the Governor-General in Council for the appropriation of revenue or moneys relating to the following heads of expenditure shall not be submitted to the vote of the Legislative Assembly, nor Shall they be open to discussion by either Chamber at the time when the annual statement is under consideration, unless the Governor-General otherwise directs:

(i) Interest and sinking fund charges on loans; and
394
(ii) Expenditure, of which the amount is prescribed by or under any law; and
(iii) Salaries and pensions of persons appointed by or with the approval of His Majesty or by the Secretary of State in Council; and
(iv) Salaries of chief commissioners and judicial commissioners."


Those words are in Sub-sections (3) and (4), and those are the two Sub-sections it is proposed to amend by the present Bill, the words being
(iii) Salaries and pensions payable to or to the dependents of—

(a) persons appointed by or with the approval of His Majesty or the Secretary of State in Council:
(b) chief commissioners and judicial commissioners."


The House will see that here we follow the wording of the original Act. Then it goes on:
(iv) Sums payable to any person who is or has been in the service of the Crown in India under any order of the Secretary of State in Council, of the Governor-General in Council, or of a Governor, made upon an appeal made to him in pursuance of rules made under the Act.
The object of that particular Sub-section, which, though it may appear very complicated in its language, is really very simple, is that if on an appeal made by any officer who is affected by this Bill he has, as the result of the appeal, further emoluments of any kind, it shall be made effective under the Act; that is to say, it shall not come within the purview of the Legislature.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many people, approximately, are affected by the extension?

Earl WINTERTON: It is obviously impossible to say. It depends entirely on the number of appeals. Perhaps I can explain the matter best in this way. It does not include any more persons that those who wore intended to be covered by the 1919 Act, except in so far as this Act proposes to extend the number of those persons, to whom I shall refer in a moment. It depends solely on the number of appeals made. I should say, speaking from an experience now of nearly four years (with an interval when another Government was in power), that the number of persons so affected would be wry small indeed. I should hardly like to make an estimate. The Clauses which
are the most important Clauses in the Bill, one might say the only important Clauses in the Bill, make exactly the same alterations in the case of the Governors' legislative councils as are made in the case of the Assembly. They add the following persons:
Persons appointed before the first day of April, ninteen hundred and twenty-four, by the Governor-General in Council or by a local Government, to services or posts classified by rules under this Act as superior services or posts; and …
Here, again, these words may seem to be complicated and difficult, but in reality their effect is very simple. In the first place, this Sub-section proposes to give the concessions advocated by the Lee Commission, and which have been put into effect by administrative act, to those persons who were appointed either by the Governor-General in Council or by local governors to services or posts which are classified by the Rules under this Act as superior services or posts. There are some Members who feel, and that feeling was given expression to by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), that that extension should go further. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State, after giving it most careful consideration and after the fullest consultation with the Government of India, decided that the Sub-section as it appears in the Bill would adequately cover all those persons who, as the result of his investigations and of the recommendations of the Lee Commission, ought to be included in the Bill and brought under what may be described as the protection of the Act. As regards the Clause referring to pensions, there again all that is intended is to put the pensions of persons who are under the 1919 Act outside the purview of the Assembly.
May I now sum up what is my case for the Bill and the arguments for it, by saying this; I, like the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was a close observer of the progress of the 1919 Act through this House, and I certainly thought at that time, as I believe he thought and others like the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik). who was also a very close observer of the- Act, that the intention of the Act was to exclude absolutely from the purview of the Assembly the salaries of persons appointed by the Secretary of State in
Council. Indeed, I should not have been in favour of it if it had not been so, and I and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who took great interest in the Bill, would have strongly opposed the proposals, for it was because we believed, for reasons which it is unnecessary to go into now, that those appointed by the Secretary of State in Council should not come under the purview of the Legislative Assemblies, that we supported the Bill. All that these rather complicated Clauses do is to make clear and definite what we believe to have been the intention of Parliament at that time. I deny absolutely, with all respect and, I hope, with all courtesy, the contention made by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, that this is in any way a breach of the spirit or the letter of that Act.
There is only one other Clause of importance in the Bill, and that is Clause 2, which states that no rules or other provisions made or confirmed under this Section shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Secretary of State in Council to deal with the case of any person in the Civil Service of the Crown in India in such manner as may appear to him to be just or equitable. This has not been raised in the Debate, but the reason for the Clause is that, in 1919, for the first time, the Indian Civil Service and other services comparable to it were brought under a code of Rules made by the Secretary of State in Council. I believe the reason was that Mr. Montagu felt, in view of the changed conditions in which they were going to serve, Civil Servants would in future like to have a code of Rules under which to serve, similar in some respects to the Royal Warrant under which officers of the Army serve. On the whole, I think that has been satisfactory, but my noble Friend has found it impracticable in some cases, and I have had personal experience of them, for as a result of these Rules, when a hard case arises where it is obviously desirable to make some allowance or concession, we are precluded by the Rules from doing it. We therefore, under this Clause, take the opportunity of obtaining powers from Parliament to enable the Secretary of State to dispense with those Rules in particular cases. I need hardly give the assurance that that power will only be exercised comparatively rarely.
I hope I have succeeded in explaining to the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentlemen and the House generally what the purpose of this Bill is. I would only add that it is in no sense a. racial Bill, as has been suggested in some quarters. Indeed, I am not sure that the speech to which we have just listened did not, to some extent, give the impression that it was a Bill which only concerns Europeans. That is not so. It concerns Indians and Europeans. It is not a racial Bill. It is quite true that the Assembly, by a majority, rejected the Report of the Commission, but it is equally true that every Indian member of the Commission signed the Report, and that the Report was unanimous. It was a striking tribute

to the way in which Indians and Europeans can work together that they should have produced so excellent and so unanimous a Report. Whatever may be the opinion of some Indians who have been quoted by hon. Members opposite, I believe the great bulk of opinion in India which, after all, is sensible, reasonable and fair-minded opinion, is in favour of adequate salaries and emoluments being paid to Indians and Europeans alike who serve under the Crown in India.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 77.

Division No. 472.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir .lames T.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford


Albery, Irving James
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major J. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. sir S. J. G.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Dixey, A. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Applin, Colonel R.V. K.
Drewe, C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F.
W. Duckworth, John
Homan, C. W. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)


Atkinson, C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elveden, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
England, Colonel A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M.(Hackney, N.)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, White'h'n)


Bethell, A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fenby, T. D.
Huntingfield, Lord


Boothby, B. J. G.
Fermoy, Lord
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'hl's)


Bourne, Captain Robert Crolt
Fielden, E. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Finburgh, S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fleming, D. P.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Briggs, J. Harold
Ford, P. J.
Jacob. A. E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Forrest, W.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lamb, J, Q.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lane-Fox, Colonel George R.


Burman, J. B.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Loder, J. de V.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, L.


Campbell, E. T.
Gee, Captain R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Charles Glen


Chapman, Sir S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grace, John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Grant, J. A.
McLean, Major A.


Christie, J. A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macmillan. Captain H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gretton, Colonel John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Macquisten, F. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Clayton, G. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hanbury, C.
Merriman, F. B.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cope, Major William
Harland, A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Coupor, J. B.
Harney, E. A.
Mitchall, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harrison, G. J. C-
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Murchison, C. K.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hawke. John Anthony
Neville, R. J.


Crook, C. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Booths)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Crooke, J, Smedley (Deritend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sandon, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Or. T.


Pease, William Edwin
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wells, S. R.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Wiggins, William Martin


Perring, William George
Shepperson. E. W.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Pilcher, G.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Preston, William
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N, R., Richm'd)


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, R. R, (Stafford, Lichfield)


Ramsden, E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, D. D, (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Rentoul, G. S.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wolmer, Viscount


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. P.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Rye, F. G.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wragg, Herbert


Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-



Sandeman, A. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Stamford, T. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Stephen, J. (St. Rollox)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sutton, J. E.


Barnes, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, R. A.


Barr, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Tinker, John Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Townend, A. E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Laith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Bromley, J.
Lansbury, George
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Buchanan, G.
Lindley, F. W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cape, Thomas
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Charleton, H. C.
Mackinder, W.
Weir, L. M.


Cluse, W. S-
March, S.
Welsh. J. C.


Compton, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Cove, W. G.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Day, Colonel Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dennison, R.
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)
Wright, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.



Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, w. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Scurr.


Hardie, George D.
Snell, Harry



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a, Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT (FACILITIES) AMENDMENT [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, by substituting other provisions for those contained in Section 27 of the said Act, and to
authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, in pursuance of the provisions to be substituted as aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The object of this Resolution is one which should commend itself in all quarters of the House. It is to carry out the promise which was made to local authorities in 1919, that the State would hand over to them on a self-supporting basis the small holdings which were bought for the settlement of ex-service men. The reasons why this Resolu-
tion is necessary are set out in the White Paper which is obtainable in the Vote Office, and I need, therefore, only say a very few words. Under the Land Settlement Act, 1919, it was provided that county councils and county borough councils should act as agents for the Government in land settlement schemes for ex-service men, and during the first years, while conditions and values were unstable, it was arranged that the Government should pay year by year the ascertained losses. On the 1st April, 1926, a valuation was provided for, to enable the State to assume the excess charge over the economic return on these holdings, so as to hand them over on a self-supporting basis. Unfortunately, the Act provided for this valuation on a capital basis, and it merely provided that if the local authority's liability exceeded this capital valuation in future years the State was to pay the proportion of the loan charges represented by that capital excess. Six years ago no one could foresee the fall in money rates, and if a local authority has this valuation now carried out on the original basis, they would have to bear the difference between the present day money rate at 4¾ per cent. and the 6½ per cent. rate at which a local authority could originally borrow money.
That is the main object of the Resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it, but there is another point I must mention. Under Section 26 e£ the Act payments were to be made in arrear up to and including the current year. Section 27 is rather obscure, but it would appear that the State contributions, after the valuation at the end of this year, should be paid during the year in which they fall due. That would involve a double charge next year, but for convenience it is proposed to defer it till 1929-30, when the beet sugar subsidy is automatically reduced The Amendments to Section 27 are necessarily rather technical and complicated, and I thought it much better to set them out in a White Paper rather than detain the Committee with a formal exposition which they might find it difficult to follow, but the provisions of this valuation have been agreed with the County Councils' Association, and they merely embody the undoubted intentions of Parliament. It is very urgent to regularise this position because
the county councils are already beginning to collect the data for this valuation, and it is to save unnecessary cost and inconvenience that I ask the House to let us have this Resolution to-night and the Bill that is to be founded upon it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I only rise to say, after the explanation of the Minister—whom we are all glad to see back at his post—that we shall be glad to postpone discussion of the matter until we see the actual details of the Bill which are foreshadowed. Obviously, any debate that will arise will centre round the actual proposals to be substituted for Section 27. The only thing is that in passing the Money Resolution to-night I am wondering whether there is any possibility of getting a statement whether the Minister knows roughly what the additional charge is likely to be.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it will really save money. The existing basis of valuation is absolutely unworkable and if we do not pass the Bill local authorities will be faced with chaos. It is most important from the point of view of economy that we should get this valuation at the earliest possible moment because we believe we shall effect a considerable saving. At present there is no incentive to local authorities to administer economically. Under the new valuation any saving they can bring about will accrue to their own finances. We believe we shall be able to bring about a considerable saving owing to administrative economics. By passing this Bill we shall also be able to avoid a double charge next year.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: On behalf of the County Council's Association I should like to tell the Committee that this matter has been the subject of negotiation and most careful consideration extending over many months between representatives of the county councils and of the Ministry of Agriculture, and as a result the proposals submitted are all agreed, I think, in every particular. We believe that these proposals will be equitable, and fair both to the taxpayers and to the ratepayers.

Mr. FENBY: I congratulate the Minister and his advisers. There are certain technical details of the proposed
arrangement, but if hon. Members will study the White Paper they will find all the information they desire. The county councils, or some of them, are anxious to make a move forward with regard to settling men upon the land as smallholders, and unless this settlement is arrived at before the House rises for Christmas, it will be almost impossible to carry out the settlement for April next between the county councils and the Ministry. What I am anxious about, as a member of a county authority, is that this settlement should be effected as early as possible, so that a forward movement may be made in regard to small holdings in getting more men upon the land.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MAIL CONTRACT (FAIR ISLE AND SUMBURGH).

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st December].

That the Contract, dated the 17th day of September, 1923, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and Messrs. Stout, of Pair Isle, Shetland, for the conveyance of mails between Fair Isle and Sumburgh (Shetland) be approved."—[Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson.]

Question again proposed.

COASTGUARD BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [5th August].

That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act. 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th July and published, be approved."—[Sir Burton Chadwick.]

Which Amendment was: In line 4, at the end, to add the words
subject to the omission of Section 7 (1) B. and Schedule L Part II."—[Mr. Neville.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. NEVILLE: I do not propose to proceed with that Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the word "approved'' and to add instead thereof the words:
Referred to a Select Committee of four Members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether in their opinion Section 7 (1) B of Part 2 of the First Schedule of the Order should be omitted; that the proceedings of the Committee "to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of Section 7 (1) B of Part 2 of the First Schedule shall be heard, provided that a statement of objection shall have been deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the House of Commons before the fourth day sifter the date of this Order, but an opponent shall only be heard on the objections which have been specified in the Statement.
I move this Amendment with the concurrence of the Board of Trade, and after protracted negotiations.

Mr. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the House will accept it. The difficulty is entirely one of site. This is a case where a gas company proposed to dump down a gasometer, against the wishes of the parish council and the rural district council, on a site where it would seriously affect the amenities of a small village. We hope that the House will protect the interests of this small community, and not allow the gas company to override the wishes of the local residents.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): On behalf of the President of the Board of Trade I accept the Amendment.

Sir FRANK MEYER: As the Member for the constituency in which the company's works are situated I would like to say a few words. In the first place, I would thank the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Neville) for agreeing to withdraw his original Amendment and to substitute that which is now before us. My position in the matter has been a little bit difficult, for two reasons. As the Member for Great Yarmouth it was
naturally my duty to try to support the gas company in their endeavours to shed a little light upon the dark places of the constituency of my hon. Friend. At the same time my interests are somewhat divided, because the constituency for which my hon. Friend sits was the first constituency which I had the honour of wooing, in the sense that it was my first political love. I must admit that I lost the election. It is said that "Tie better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." My sympathies, therefore, were very largely with the hon. Member.
Secondly, Caister is a place adjacent to my constituency, and only a tram ride distant. The two constituencies are so situated that the amenities are often shared by them, and in fact the golf course at this place is called the Great Yarmouth and Caistor Golf Club. Speaking on behalf both of my present constituency and of the one which I once wooed and lost, I am glad this compromise has been reached. With regard to a remark of the Seconder of the Amendment, I do not think it was quite fair to the gas company. The gas company have committed no crime. They wanted to supply gas to the neighbouring districts, and they complied with every regulation and gave all the necessary notices, and no objection was taken, cither by the district council or the parish council at any of the ordinary stages at which such objection should be raised. I am not blaming these bodies, but that is the fact. It was only on the very eve of this matter coming before the House in August last, that objection was raised by the parish, and that objection was naturally brought before the House by my hon. Friend. I do not think any blame therefore attaches to the gas company, and I fed certain an honourable compromise will be arrived at by which neither the constituency of the hon. Member nor the gas company in my constituency will suffer.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The attention of the House ought to be called to this particular form of Resolution dealing with these Gas Orders. Those who were in the House in 1919 and 1920 will remember that the Act referred to here under which this Order is made, establishes an entirely new form of procedure under which these Orders require the positive approval of Parliament. This
particular form of Amendment is intended to deal with, disputed cases, and its effect is to send these Orders back to go through the ordinary Private Bill procedure. There is a point in connection with this Amendment which I hope its promoters have carefully considered. It only refers to the committee the limited question of whether a particular section is to be included in the Order or not. Are they certain that this covers all that is desired? I warn the House of the danger of doing otherwise than remitting these Orders as a whole to these committees. Only a few months ago I had to move a similar Amendment but under the threat—if I may so call it—the Minister in charge was good enough to meet my wishes, and he agreed to accept a long string of Amendments to the Order. These were largely consequential, and merely meant the leaving out of one district, and they were settled most carefully by the Government Department. Ultimately, however, it was ascertained that if the Order had been passed in that form, they would have created chaos, and it was only the fact that the town clerk of Watford discovered these mistakes which caused the matter to be put right in time. I. therefore, urge the House that in the case of opposed Orders the matter should be sent back under the Private Bill procedure, and I respectfully suggest that, as a general rule, the whole Order should be sent back in the widest possible form.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Great Yarmouth Gas Company, which was presented on the 10th July and published, be referred to a Select Committee of four members appointed by the Committee of Selection for their Report, which shall state whether in their opinion Section 7 (1) B of Part II of the First Schedule of the Order should be omitted; that the proceedings of the Committee to which the Order is referred shall be conducted in like manner as in the case of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill under Standing Order 151, and opponents of Section 7 (1) B of Part II of the First Schedule shall be hoard, provided that a statement of objection shall have been deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office of the House of Commons before the fourth day after the date of this Order, but an opponent shall only be heard on the objections which have been specified in the statement.

Orders of the Day — WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — LEAD PAINT (PROTECTION AGAINST POISONING) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November, proposed the Question," That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise a question of which I have given the Minister of Labour notice, concerning the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I want to raise two particular questions which relate to Glasgow, and concerning which the Glasgow experience, I think, will be the experience throughout the country. The first question is one concerning the Regulation which is now being administered, and which has been administered for some time, relating to a person making application for unemployment benefit where he has not worked for a reasonable period during the past two years. I understand the answer may be that this Regulation was introduced during the Labour Government's term of office, but, if so, I want to say that it certainly was introduced by the Labour Government, and there is nothing lost in admitting it. I myself, along with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), approached the then Under-Secretary to the Ministry with regard to this question, and were told that the Act dealing with the two years period was not meant to operate in areas which had for a long period
been suffering from unemployment, but only in areas where trade had been comparatively good and where it was thought that men and women would have a reasonable opportunity to find work. At that time there was no idea of carrying these regulations into areas in which it was admitted that it was impossible to find work.
Last Wednesday I put to the Minister of Labour a question, and whatever charges were made on the last occasion about figures being faked or being wrong, I am sure on this occasion he will not charge me with exaggerating the figures. I asked him how many persons who made application for benefit for eight weeks in Glasgow and how many had been refused under the Clause dealing with not having a reasonable period of work during the past two years. I think he said in round figures something in the region of 40,000 had made application, and 2,600 of them had been disqualified because of not having a reasonable period of work in the last two years. That means that 6 per cent. of applicants for employment benefit are now being cut off in a shipbuilding area. It is a question of the whole area being idle. Men are now being struck off under this Regulation, which was not meant in its operation to apply to areas which had over a long period of time widespread depression. The committee at present have also other Regulations, such as not genuinely seeking work. I have a question to-morrow asking how many persons have been disqualified in connection with other reasons, and one was the question of not genuinely seeking work. I understand that the procedure in the Exchanges is, this: The first thing a man has to answer is, Is he genuinely seeking work? If he has proved that he is looking for work, that during his period of unemployment he has searched here and there, after they have gone to the extent of gathering recommendations of one kind or another, they bring them to the committee and they cannot turn them down because they are bad, because they are rotters, because they are lazy, for, having submitted abundant proof, they must accept them. But they turn round and when the man has proved these things say, "You have not worked for two years," heedless of the fact that there has been no opportunity for it, and
that he has been unable to get work. Therefore he cannot have benefit.
I want to ask the Minister how do his figures compare with the administration of this class with the figures of his predecessor? Is it not a fact that they show on the administration of this class a tremendous increase in the disqualifications under this heading as compared with the administration of his predecessor? Let me quote the Southside Employment Exchange. I have always made it a practice never to go near him in connection with the question of unemployment cases. I have always gone to the local manager, unless there was some question of principle involved, because I find I get quicker treatment. I get more, or at least as many, cases in connection with unemployment as any Member of the House. I represent almost the poorest district, or one of the poorest, in the whole of Scotland, and I live within three minutes' walk of the Employment Exchange. One can well understand the work my wife has to put in while I am here speaking.
In the time of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, I never had a single case disqualified for not having worked a reasonable period during the two years, because the management of the South side Employment Exchange stated then that a man had not only to be idle for two years, but it had to be proved there were opportunities to work in his industry during the two years. I want the right hon. Gentleman to face this issue. I see the Secretary for Scotland beside him. He and I are representative largely of the parish council on the South side. The predominant part of his division is covered by the Govan parish council. If you are going to cut off these men, they must live. Society has not yet descended to the state when we are to say human beings are to die. The right hon. Gentleman is either going to refuse these people, and put terrible burdens on the local authority, or grant them benefit.
There is a further issue. Take married men with children. It does not really matter to them if the money is refused at the Employment Exchange, for they march to the parish council and get the benefit, the amount they get there being exactly the same as it would be from the Employment Exchange, and, there-
fore, they do not care, because, after all, the thing that matters is income, and not where it comes from. But take the single person. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect single persons who are deprived of any income to live? Does he think that because a man has been two years out of work he is a bad man? If he is a bad man punish him, but do not refuse him the means of livelihood. If the Minister of Labour is going to keep on administering the Act in this fashion, it raises the most grave consequences. I listened to-day to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for E. Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), with whom I usually agree, but I must say I can raise no enthusiasm about the Women's Police Bill for different reasons. Most of these things are to protect women of an unfortunate class. I often think it would be much better if you prevented women getting to that, instead of appointing policemen to look after them when they are there. Here you have withdrawn from the female population the means of living, because they have been out of work a considerable time. The Secretary for Scotland and the Undersecretary, who know the subject, cannot get away from the fact that the withdrawal of benefit raises the gravest moral problem in our great cities.
11.0 P.M.
I hope the Minister is not going to tell me this is an insurance scheme. If it bean insurance scheme, run it as such, but you must accept responsibility for some counter-proposals to keep these poor people alive. I could have quoted individual cases, not one but 20, but it is not my job to do it. I could tell of men of good character, men who fought in the War, men who have rendered good service in the past—men engaged in shipping. They have walked about to find work, and cannot find it. It might be argued that a man who has been out of work for two years is, therefore, a bad man. Let me put to the Minister the experience of an ordinary man out of work. I remember when I was younger being out of work for eight or nine months. What did I find? I found that the longer I was out of work the harder it became to get a job. When I was in work, and there was a chance of some of us going to be dismissed, and were dismissed, we always liked to get a job as
quickly as we possibly could, because, when a man is out of work, he finds that his craftsmanship depreciates not only amongst his fellows but amongst the employers, and the longer he is out the harder struggle he has to get a job again.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this close administration with which he is proceeding is more hard and more cruel even than that of his predecessor? Why is it you have an increase in the figures in the City of Glasgow? Why are you operating the Act in such a way that the men cannot find work? The Government must really either give them work or at least give them some maintenance. I would put a question to the Secretary for Scotland, and I apologise for not giving him notice of it, but during the Debate on unemployment the Minister of Labour definitely stated that there was no unemployment in the building trade in Glasgow. He afterwards modified that statement to the effect that there were no idle plasterers. But last Wednesday there were in Glasgow 8,000 unemployed persons in the building industry. Included in that number it was said there were bricklayers. More to my surprise the right hon. Gentleman stated definitely that there were no unemployed plasterers. But an answer last Wednesday showed there were 17 unemployed plasterers in Glasgow. The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat bitter or, at least, very critical, and cynical, in relation to some of our speeches, because some of our figures were not correct. But he himself, with all his opportunities to be quite correct in his figures, seemed to err.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has taken any steps, through his Department, to secure that that unemployed labour shall be used to its full resources in providing houses for the people? I would ask that these poor people should have elementary justice. These folk are as good men as any in this House. One marvels, not so much at their badness, but at their goodness, and how they have remained so good and so clean throughout all their trouble. It speaks a lot for their kindness of disposition and goodness of heart. I hope the Minister of Labour, in his reply, will say to us that these 2,500 people in Glasgow, who have been disqualified, will be
given some measure of hope during this terrible winter time. We can give hope to the people abroad. We can give hope to people of the Irish Free State. Why not the people whom we know? Why not give them some hope? Why not extend to them at this Christmas season some hope? At least if the right hon. Gentleman cannot give them work let him give to these poor people what sympathy he can in the shape of at least the minimum benefit that can be secured to them.

Mr. HARDIE: Now that this subject has been raised, I want to draw attention to what is taking place, as a result of the Government's method of getting money for the supposed scheme for widows' pensions, and the cruelties which are following on the sweeping of people from the Employment Exchanges without —as it appears to us—adequate reason. I put before the Minister the necessity for the Exchanges finding out the real causes why people are dismissed from employment. The cruelties which are being perpetrated in that way could only be described properly if one had time to go through each case and to read all the letters recounting the hardships suffered. If the case were fairly faced by the Government, they would say to us, "Very well, we know we are sweeping cases off the Exchanges without good reason, but we want to sweep them on to the parish councils." If they would say that we could understand the methods they have adopted, and especially this referee and umpire business which refines the cruelty in such a way that when we meet these cases in our own constituencies we feel something rising in us that we do not like to feel rising.
I would refer to the case of the young woman worker who is living at home, and the specially refined cruelty of the Minister himself when he exercises his discretion as to the income going into that home. What he has done, so far as Glasgow and the rest of Scotland are concerned, is to reduce everything to the level of a parochial officer's investigation. Every means are being adopted by the Government to try to degrade, if possible, the helpless people who are unemployed. There is the degradation of having the parochial officer, or someone of that status, coming to the house to make
investigations, going into the neighbours' houses to see whether the statements made are correct, and trying to find out whether the income of the home is not sufficient to maintain either a son or a son and daughter. Take the case of the unemployed youth, with all his fresh young ideas, all his mental forces in full swing, with his fine physique and his desire to get something to do. We crush everything that is good in these youths by making them feel that they are thrown back upon the poverty of the home. The youth, with his ideas, ought to be allowed to do something to add to the income of the home.
With regard to the dismissals of the Employment Exchanges, they adopt the most, arbitrary methods. I will cite as sin instance a case which I have just sent back to (he Minister. It was the case of a woman working in an infirmary. After three months' constant employment she asked to be relieved for the afternoon, giving a week's notice. She got the usual form handed to her in an envelope when she was going out. She gave it to the gateman, thinking it was all right. The permission was not for the afternoon but for two hours, though she took it as being for the afternoon. When she came next morning she was dismissed. But the people in the Employment Exchanges take no notice of this: they take no notice of the reason why the woman finds herself unemployed. The Employment Exchanges are becoming more inhuman every day as far as the unemployed are concerned. You have got to be like us, knowing the men all your life, and then hearing the statements, made to them in the Employment Exchanges, to realise how inhuman this machine, which was supposed to help, is becoming. The Minister himself claims to have a fair and just outlook in human relationships. That is why I am making this appeal to him to let it become the spirit of the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. LAWSON: I am glad to have the opportunity of joining with my friends on this occasion in pointing out to the Minister that, wonderful and striking as was his explanation of this matter last week, the fact remains that those of us who live in our divisions in great industrial areas—and I live in the same house as I did when I worked at the mine and
among my old friends—are having very lamentable evidence of the result of his administration and particularly of the recent Regulations he has issued. During the Recess and during the week-ends we have coming to our homes young men who are having their unemployment benefit stopped because it is said that there is a certain amount of money coming into their homes. It is an unfair thing that the parents, who have toiled hard all their lives, should be compelled to keep a young man out of their scanty income, an income that is not calculated on a basis of holidays or luxuries, but merely upon the basis of an elementary existence. It is hard upon those parents—indeed it is a shameful thing—that after they have brought up their boy, and he has become an asset and ought to be helping them, that just because he loses his employment they are deprived not only of his income but are compelled by the Regulations of the Minister of Labour to keep him.
I want to ask the Minister to consider a case such as that in my area. The two black areas for unemployment, as he knows, are in South Wales and in Durham. In Durham there are 12 collieries idle. I could take him round places where there is a great block of collieries idle and where for square miles there is scarcely one man in employment. The effect is that the relieving authorities are practically bankrupt. Yet at a time like this, in an area like that, the Minister lays great burdens on the guardians, burdens which they certainly cannot carry. I know the Minister will demonstrate In his own satisfaction that, there was a decrease in unemployment and that really the extent to which he has taken people off the registers of the Employment Exchanges is not so bad when you take the whole country into consideration. Yet, what do we find? That the amounts of Poor Law relief last week have gone up by leaps and bounds. It was a collosal increase in the amount of relief that had to be granted up and down the country. There is very clear indication that the Government have made up their minds that there are going to be no works of relief of any kind. I have had an instance of that: The guardians in my own Division are coming here to-morrow to meet the Minister of Health. They are bankrupt,
and they are dependent on the Minister to keep them going during the next week or two. Our people do not want relief; they want work. I hope that more and more from these benches we are going to have emphasis laid upon the fact that these people want work.
We want to see the men we have known so well, upright men, my own neighbours, strong, straight, up and down men, who neither drink nor smoke and to -whom it is a positive pain to be unemployed provided with work; and yet, at a time like this, the policy of the Government is to take away all possibility of relief. The Minister of Transport met the county council representatives in my district, and practically he said to them: "Yes, it is a good scheme. It is a main road, which is absolutely necessary in the interests of providing work and also in the interests of traffic, but I am sorry we can do nothing in the matter; in fact, there are going to be no more relief works.' If that is going to be the policy of the Government, then not only the people in my Division and up and down the country will be affected, but I shall be in exactly the same position myself. There is no unemployment benefit for your young men, no relief for bankrupt guardians, and no relief works. Do the Government think that can continue without trouble? I am the last one to advocate trouble, but I should have very little respect for my people if they sat silent under such treatment as this.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I will answer as briefly as the time left me will allow the various points which have been placed before me. The last speaker referred to the hardship inflicted upon young persons living with their parents who could support them, and as an instance he gave a case within his own knowledge where there was scarcely one person employed in a whole block and he said that my Rules placed a great hardship upon the Guardians. May I point out to the hon. Member that where there is only one person employed in a block of houses the Rules which I made cannot and will not be applied quite clearly, in the circumstances, because—

Mr. LAWSON: I took a certain part of the division, and I gave a particular case.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then let the hon. Member give me a concrete case, which would be worth a dozen such sentences as that. Quite obviously, where you have a block of houses in which only one person is in employment, it is perfectly impossible and inconceivable—and is not done, to disallow the benefit to young persons who are living with their parents in such a block. I have had a careful examination made of one complaint that has recently been brought to my notice—I do not say it is typical, but it is the latest case I have had. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) talked about, the refined cruelty of examining into the means in such cases. The special case brought to me was that of a family of seven and in the case of one of them benefit was disallowed. It was brought to me as a case of hardship. When I examined it, I found that there was £9 2s. per week coming to other members of the family in that house. Does the hon. Member call that a case of refined cruelty, and ought I not to examine into the means in such cases?

Mr. HARDIE: I am not saying that that is hardship, but I am speaking of cases that come within any personal knowledge.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am giving a concrete case that has been brought before me as apart from these general accusations. Now I will take the statement of the hon. Member. He says that in the Employment Exchanges in Glasgow now they take no cognisance of the reasons that there have been for unemployment. That was his statement, as nearly as I could take down his words. These cases for extended benefit come before the Rota Committee, and in most cases in Glasgow, as the hon. Gentleman is, or ought to be, as well aware as I am, the majority of the men who do good service voluntarily on these rota committees are representatives of the workmen. I should like the hon. Gentleman to make that accusation up there, that these workmen take no cognisance of the reasons for unemployment.

Mr. HARDIE: I am just stating a case where the reasons for dismissal have not been considered by the Umpire.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is not a case of the Umpire, but of the Employment Exchange and the rota committees, and I should be glad to hear the hon. Member make that accusation against these committees in Glasgow— that the workers' representatives sitting on the rota committees and coming to the decisions to which he objects, are people who take no cognisance of the reasons for unemployment. He will find that they, just as much as I, resent entirely any such statement being made about them. With regard to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan)—

Mr. MARCH: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the rota committees, may I ask him to say how many of the rota committees have offered their resignation because they cannot administer the Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At the present time there are seven who are not fully functioning and, if I am right, there are two or throe of these who are not functioning at all and for whom officials have to act. The recent deputation of the Council of the Trades Union Congress that came to mo said that they themselves were advising these committees, under the circumstances, to continue their duties.

Mr. MARCH: I know they have been advising them, but much against their will, many of them.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I allow them to settle their consciences with the Council of the Trades Union Congress. With regard to the question that the hon. Member raised, let me put to him quite briefly the answer. There has really been no difference as between my predecessor and myself in the treatment of Glasgow. There are two Clauses under which there may be disallowances, as the hon. Member knows quite well. I have not with me the figures for this particular class of disallowances—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I can give them to you now.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have the figures that I gave to the hon. Member, but I am not putting that case at all. That refers to the general character of the applicant's industrial history, whereas
the other Clause—making reasonable efforts to obtain employment—applies to what has happened, perhaps, more recently. That is the real difference as between Glasgow and the rest of the country—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not saying that Glasgow is worse than the rest of the country.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I know. There is no difference in this between Glasgow and the rest of the country. Although he sits for a Scottish constituency and I do not, perhaps I am a greater friend to him than my predecessor was, as indeed happened in the Committee upstairs, when I closured many other cases, and it was left to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) to closure the Scottish Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: ; I know that.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In regard to this case, the applications from Glasgow to me—that being one of those towns that are hard hit by the industrial depression—are greater in proportion than the applications from the Kingdom as a whole. The disallowances in Glasgow are only the same in proportion as the rest of the country. Therefore, even judged by the figures, the treatment of Glasgow has given full allowance to the depressed condition of trade in the ship-building industry there. What happened was this: I know the trade has been hard hit. I will give, the hon. Member any figures I can with regard to Glasgow afterwards to show him the situation, and I recognise fully that the hon. Member at any rate does try to settle cases with the local Exchange officer before bringing them to me. In the treatment of the most distressed places, I have gone upon the principle I laid down 11 months ago in Glasgow, and that is that careful consideration ought to be had, in the question of disallowance, as regards the state of employment and the chances of getting work. I was questioned up there 11 months ago, and I said exactly the same as now. There is a difference between the general labourer and a plater or a boilermaker in a depressed trade. If you have a general labourer there is such a much greater turn in and turn out of work that you could reasonably ex-
pect him to get a certain number of weeks work in the last year or two years. With regard to the general labourer that is true, but it may not be true of a man, however skilled and with however good an industrial history, in a trade that has been so hard hit as the shipbuilding industry, the iron and steel trade and one or two others. It is precisely for that reason that I have said to one insurance committee after another, "Take those circumstances into consideration when you are actually dealing with cases." If my hon. Friend will ask the members of the Employment Committee in Glasgow—

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a letter from the vice-chairman.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: He will find out exactly what I said to them. He will find that it is exactly what is also laid down in the codified instructions which have been issued. Perhaps I may read those instructions?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know them very well.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The instruction reads:
No definite period of employment can he prescribed for the purpose of this condition. The test varies between different claimants in different districts. In the districts where employment as a. whole has been good, notwithstanding the general
depression, a higher standard will be required than in districts which have been subject to severe depression. Each ease must be determined on its merits and in the light of individual and local circumstances, including both the normal employment of the claimant and the opportunities of obtaining such employment, and, in the absence of such employment, the opportunities of obtaining other employment. The Committee, with their intimate knowledge of the industrial conditions in their respective areas, will be in the best position to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
The rest of the instrument is on exactly the same lines. What the hon. Member will realise if he will go into it is that every care possible has been taken to try to meet the circumstances of the case in deciding both on the point whether the claimant has been making every effort to obtain work, and also, what it a similar but slightly different condition, as to whether he has obtained a reasonable amount of work under the circumstances. That has been the custom throughout, and as far as I can sec and as far as I know it has been administered by the different employment committees in a way which, I think, has shown consideration for all the circumstances. and that good administration has resulted.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.